1 (Case called.)2 THE COURT: Good morning.3 Where is the witness?4 (Jury enters.)5 THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury.6 Please be seated.7 Again, I want to thank you very much for your8 diligence and punctuality. I'm sorry I kept you waiting.9 I had two other matters on this morning, which I'm still10 discussing with the lawyers and that is the reason for the11 delay.12 You may proceed.

13 A N D R E W R O S E N B L A T T, having been14 previously sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined15 and testified as follows:16 Mr. Rosenblatt, you are still under oath. Do you17 understand that?18 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.19 DIRECT EXAMINATION20 BY MR. WHITE: (Continued.)21 Q When we broke yesterday we were discussing the loan22 account for Who's Who Worldwide for Mr. Gordon for the23 year 1991. Do you recall that?24 A Yes, I do.25 Q And we were looking at Exhibit 655 which was the

1 Who's Who general ledger for that period. Do you remember2 that?3 A I don't remember the exhibit number, but yes.4 Q And that only went to July of 1991; is that correct?5 A That's correct.6 Q Now, let me show you Exhibit
1004-A.7 Have you prepared an analysis of the taxable8 income --9 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, Your Honor.10 THE COURT: I didn't hear the question.11 MR. TRABULUS: I'm sorry.12 BY MR. WHITE:13 Q Have you prepared an analysis of the taxable income14 to Mr. Gordon for the years 1991 through 1994?15 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, Your Honor.16 THE COURT: On what grounds?17 MR. TRABULUS: On the grounds it calls for18 testimony relating to a legal conclusion, relating what19 the income is and not taxable.20 THE COURT: That's not necessarily a legal21 conclusion. While it's true, this witness as an expert22 cannot give legal conclusions most of the time. That's a23 very interesting issue. Where you have ultimate24 conclusions and legal conclusions are two different25 things. But with respect to what is taxable from an IRS

1 point of view, he certainly can testify as to that.2 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, I would like to3 approach with a further discussion because I believe in4 this particular instance you should not.5 THE COURT: All right. Come up.6 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, maybe I can move things7 along. I don't want to move the exhibit, I want the8 witness to refer to it for the purposes of its9 calculations, not whether or not it is taxable income but10 the numbers as it relates to companies and years.11 MR. TRABULUS: Well, the jury already heard the12 answer or having heard the question, it will be clear to13 them that any testimony that he gives with regard to those14 numbers is going to be interpreted that way and I think15 the issue I'm bringing up at this point will recur

16 throughout the testimony of this witness. I think we17 ought to address it at this point.18 THE COURT: Come up.19 (Side bar.)20 THE COURT: Yes.21 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, with regard to the22 Federal Rules of Evidence not changing the prior law that23 a witness cannot give a legal conclusion, I would cite24 U.S. v. Scop, 846 F.2d at 135. It was a subsequent25 opinion but it didn't change the reasoning of that.

1 THE COURT: What does that say?2 MR. TRABULUS: Basically the old rule that an3 expert cannot give a legal conclusion still applies.4 THE COURT: Is that a tax case?5 MR. TRABULUS: That one was a securities and mail6 fraud case.7 THE COURT: Well, that was apparently prior to8 1994. Certainly --9 MR.
TRABULUS: It was '88.10 THE COURT: There were a couple of changes since11 then that have refined that.12 MR. TRABULUS: I know that. Let me get to the13 particular reason that Scop would govern.14 Based upon the government's disclosure as to the15 basis of the expert's opinion, he testified that the basis16 for the inclusion of the loans as income was based on the17 lack of good faith intent to repay, among other things.18 Now, the lack of good faith intent to repay, as I19 understand the case law, is indeed the sine qua non20 whether or not a loan is a loan or is to be treated as21 income. But intent and good faith are issues of mental22 state and Rule 704(b) would preclude testimony concerning23 that. So what he has done is couched in terms of24 testimony as to whether income is taxable or not an25 opinion as to whether or not there was good faith intent

1 to repay a loan at the time it was made.2 I would submit it was not admissible under Scop3 and under 704(b).4 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I would join in Mr. Trabulus'5 application.6 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. White.7 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, Rule 704(b) prohibits an8 expert offering testimony on the defendant's mental state9 to commit the offense that he's charged with. That's10 quite different than what Mr. Rosenblatt will testify11 about. If that were the test that you can't say anything12 at all about intent, then -- I'm sorry, if the test where13 you could never talk about the law, legal conclusions no14 expert could testify. Every determination of taxable15 income involves applying the tax code and the regulations16 to the facts and number at
issue. Scop, that case is17 entirely different. That was a securities fraud case18 whether the government put on an expert who said that19 these acts that the defendants on trial did, in his20 opinion, constituted a scheme to commit securities fraud.21 That is entirely different than this.22 THE COURT: What is this expert going to say? He23 will say that assuming these matters are not loans, they24 would be taxable income?25 MR. WHITE: Correct. And the test --

1 THE COURT: What's wrong with that? He's not2 saying -- he's not getting into the intent of the3 defendant. He's saying that assuming that they were not4 loans they would be taxable income and isn't that what you5 are saying?6 MR. WHITE: Well, yes and no, Your Honor. The7 tests as I understand it under the tax code and8 regulations in terms of deciding whether something is9 income or loans, involves whether there was the intent to10 repay the loans at the time they were taken out.11 Therefore -- and there's a series of factors in the cases12 about specific concrete factors that Agent Rosenblatt will13 apply to determine whether or not these were in fact loans14 or whether they should be considered income. That is15 entirely different then the mental state required for16 conviction. He will not testify that Mr. Gordon willfully17 conspire with Mr. Reffsin, he will not testify that he18 submitted false tax returns, his determination is not at19 all inconsistent with an acquittal. He could say look20 under IRS regulations and cases this is income, but they21 could still say, which they apparently will say,22 Mr. Gordon didn't know that, it was an honest mistake, a23 lack of evil intent.24 THE COURT: Wait a minute. What will he say?25 Tell me.

1 MR. WHITE: He's going to say -- well, there's2 two parts to it. With respect to the loans, he will say3 his opinion is that they were not bonafide loans and they4 therefore should be considered income.5 THE COURT: And give the factors for that.6 MR. WHITE: And among those reasons are the7 failure -- the lack of any notes or written documentation,8 the failure to repay any significant portion of the debt9 and a series of other factors. Those are the factors that10 are identified in the cases.11 MR. TRABULUS: May I be heard further?12 THE COURT: Yes.13 MR. TRABULUS: The testimony supposedly will be14 -- this is a disclosure I was given. With the Court's15 permission I would like to read from the letter that16 Mr. White wrote to me in connection with discovery here17 "as set forth in the government's October 28, 1997 letter18 to Mr. Carman," who of course was my predecessor,19 "Mr. Rosenblatt's opinion is based on the lack of any20 pattern of legitimate repayments of these loans.21 "Most or all of such payments were not bonafide22 in that the funds used to make such repayments were simply23 obtained from the same corporations as to whom repayment24 was made."25 Now, bonafide is simply Latin for good faith and

1 there is a good faith defense in this case and under the2 case law good faith is a complete defense. And that3 relates to the mental state of the defendant and he's4 attempting to negate it through the testimony of an expert5 and I believe that is in violation of 404(b).6 However, he dresses up the testimony concerning7 it was taxable or not, it negates the good faith as8 opposed to income. We are not talking about the situation9 where the witness will testify as to monies that were not10 reported but simply the characterization of them. As to11 good faith, I think 704(b) includes it.12 MR. WHITE: There's not been a tax case invented,13 yet when an agent testifies yes, this constitutes14 income --15 THE COURT: Well, one of the most interesting16 cases on expert testimony is United States v. Duncan, 4217 F.3d 97, (2d Cir. 1994). It was an excellent discussion18 of expert testimony. It happened to be not a tax case, it19 was a conspiracy bank fraud and making corrupt payments to20 public officials. But in this it goes -- the basic rules21 of expert testimony in a criminal case "expert testimony22 may be admissible if it is helpful to the trier of fact.23 That's the starting point. Expert witnesses are often24 uniquely qualified in guiding the trier of fact through a25 complicated morass of obscure terms and concepts, because

1 of their specialized knowledge there testimony can be2 extremely valuable and probative."3 Couldn't be more applicable to this case.4 "However, expert testimony is not permitted to5 usurp either the role of the trial judge in instructing6 the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury7 in applying that law to the facts before it. When an8 expert undertakes to tell the jury what result to reach,9 that does not aid the jury in making the decision but10 rather attempts to substitute the expert's judgment for
11 the jury.12 When this occurs, the expert acts outside of his13 limited role of providing the groundwork in the form of an14 opinion to enable the jury to make its own informed15 determination. In evaluating the admissibility of expert16 testimony the Court requires the exclusion of testimony17 which states a legal conclusion."18 Then they go into certain things involving tax19 cases.20 "Appellant takes exception to a number of21 questions which the government was permitted to ask the22 agent concerning the proper function of the tax system and23 the importance of filing tax returns accurately. These24 questions, however, did not ask the witness to express25 legal conclusions but --" this is key to this case "but

1 only to explain sophisticated aspects of a regulatory2 system for which the witness had expertise."3 Now, I'm departing from the text, that's exactly4 what this will do. We've generally permitted the5 elicitation of testimony from expert witnesses that shed6 light not within the activity of the common knowledge of7 the average juror.8 In this particular case there was a defense that9 since taxes were paid on the property, the government did10 not lose anything by inaccurate tax filings and the Court11 of Appeals held it was proper for the tax expert to12 explain why this is not good, although the taxes were13 paid.14 MR. WALLENSTEIN: That's not this case.15 THE COURT: I know it's not this case, but it16 provides guidance for the Court, a lot of guidance.17 Agent Mulligan testified based on his own18 investigation of the facts and review of the records. The19 testimony he presented did not rely on the credibility of20 other witnesses.21 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Your Honor, doesn't an22 explanation of the legal explanations of the tax code23 differ from an expert witness attempting to assert the24 defendant's intent?25 MR. TRABULUS: And here the legal conclusion is

1 premised upon a finding of lack of good faith which is the2 heart of the jury's province.3 THE COURT: No, in this case one of the issues4 for the jury will be whether these were bonafide loans or5 whether these were paid for personal expenses which should6 have been reported as income. That's one of the issues,7 correct?8 MR. TRABULUS: No.9
THE COURT: It's not?10 MR. TRABULUS: No, there's no dispute most of11 them were paid for personal expenses.12 You can have a loan made for personal expense,13 the issue is whether they were bonafide loans and the14 issue as to whether the loans were truly loans which is15 also separate from the issue of defendant's good faith.16 The issue whether they were truly loans and properly17 characterized as loans depends upon whether at the time18 the loans were disbursed there was good faith intent to19 repay the loans. That's the case law. That seems to be20 what the case law uniformly says. There were many civil21 cases, tax court cases that addressed the factors. I know22 of no criminal case that ever addressed this.23 THE COURT: First of all, I agree with you, good24 faith is a good defense in all of these tax cases and I25 will charge the jury the government has a burden of proof

1 beyond a reasonable doubt for lack of good faith, in the2 Cheek case. And as far as explaining to the jury these3 concepts, I'll explain to the jury -- now you will explain4 -- well, I'm going to play it by ear as it goes along,5 but you understand that this witness can't give a legal6 conclusion.7 What will he say -- what's the end result going8 to be?9 MR. WHITE: Let me tell you what I was leading up10 to. Right at this moment that chart he prepared is just11 the simplest way he has of the figures he calculated. In12 other words, when he left off we were going through the13 loan account each year for each company.14 THE COURT: And he's summarizing it.15 MR. WHITE: It's an hour or two hours by the time16
we get to the expert part of his testimony. I just want17 to get a year-end figure with the chart.18 THE COURT: The compilation figures, of course19 you can do that, but what about the expert testimony?20 MR. WHITE: What he's going to say, Your Honor,21 since we seem to be focusing -- there's a snub of issues22 he will say based on the cases to warrant the conclusion23 there should be income and not loans. One is that24 Mr. Gordon was asked on other IRS forms contemporaneously25 whether he had any loans, these loans were not listed.

1 Number two, there's no documentation, no written2 notes, no repayment schedule, no set interest rates for3 repayments.4 THE COURT: He will bring out there are certain5 factors that the IRS within the regulations used to

6 determine whether there were loans, correct?7 MR. WHITE: Yes, except I believe they are not in8 the regulations, they are in the case law.9 THE COURT: Well, all right, then that's a10 problem.11 MR. TRABULUS: Case law. Civil cases.12 THE COURT: Well, he can bring out, in my13 opinion, that as an IRS act what the custom and usage is14 in determining whether something is a loan, without him15 saying whether he thinks it's a loan or not. He can bring16 out the factors that are determined that the IRS uses to17 determine this, period. I will let him do that.18 MR. WALLENSTEIN: There's one other thing --19 THE COURT: I will not let him give the20 conclusion that it's a loan or not a loan.21 MR. WHITE: He can't render his opinion then?22 THE COURT: That's correct.23 MR. WHITE: But he's an expert. I thought the24 reason we had him here was to render his opinion.25 THE COURT: He's usurping the function of the

1 jury by rendering an opinion. That's the end of the case2 in that event.3 MR. WHITE: I don't think it is. There's sort of4 a two step process. One is is it a loan or income to5 begin with? Even if it is in his opinion income, that6 doesn't mean that Mr. Gordon willfully left it off.7 Mr. -- His defense apparently is he didn't think he had8 to put it on. That is not usurping the jury's function.9 THE COURT: What is the end result? What will he10 say?11 MR. WHITE: He will say the following things12 should be considered taxable income. All the items that13 are in the so-called loan account because the loan14 accounts should be income, right, and his conclusion for

15 that is as I said based on the factors. There's no16 repayment schedule, it wasn't disclosed on other forms.17 The alleged repayments --18 THE COURT: He will say it is taxable.19 MR. WHITE: Yes.20 THE COURT: In his opinion.21 MR. WHITE: Yes.22 MR. TRABULUS: That conclusion is predicated upon23 case law. The case law all originated in tax court. All24 of it originated in cases in which the taxpayer bore the25 burden of proof of determining that the commissioner's

1 assessment was incorrect.2 THE COURT: Well, at this point I will not let3 him give his opinion. I will let him give the facts that4 the IRS takes into consideration in determining whether or5 not it is taxable income and go through those factors but6 not his ultimate opinion.7 MR. WHITE: That's down the line. Right now can8 he simply refer to the numbers on the chart to tell us the9 ending balance for each account.10 THE COURT: Sure.11 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Judge Spatt, there is one12 number on that chart, and I don't have it in front of me.13 MR. TRABULUS: I have it.14 MR. WALLENSTEIN: But there are numbers on here15 particularly for the year 1993 which show where he's16 saying that payments to purchase lease, improve, furnish17 and maintain the condo and penthouse were in fact income.18 But he has a number here of $942,000 and some other for19 the purchase of the Manhasset condo which I presume20 Mr. Rosenblatt will say was income to Mr. Gordon because21 they were corporate funds.22 But the fact is that that condo was purchased and23 improved and maintained with corporate funds and is still24 titled
in the corporation, still owned by the corporation25 and is still an asset of the corporation as we speak.

1 THE COURT: All he's doing is listing what he2 says is -- could be a loan.3 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Those numbers were not in the4 loan account.5 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, one in the loan account6 is really income. The second is other monies expended for7 the corporation were the two residences, the penthouse and8 condominium also should constitute income to Mr. Gordon.9 Anything an employer provides you, a benefit like that10 should be income. So those figures are all the figures11 for the monies expended for those years on those items.12 MR. WALLENSTEIN: If that is the case and if13 Mr. White is correct that anything the employer provides14 you is income to you, the only part of this 900 some-odd15 thousand that should be income to Mr. Gordon is the16 present value of the unit because is it an asset of the17 corporation purchased with the corporate funds. If he18 used it then the fair rental value might be income.19 MR. WHITE: That's cross-examination of the20 expert. He has a reason for his calculations. And you21 have a reason for yours.22 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, I join in what23 Mr. Wallenstein says but if Your Honor will permit24 testimony from there I would like some kind of limiting25 instruction they should disregard anything they've heard

1 before.2 THE COURT: I haven't seen this document.3 MR. TRABULUS: I'm sorry, there was testimony4 that this was taxable.5 THE COURT: What is that?6 MR. TRABULUS: 1404-A.7 MR. WHITE: It is just the simplest way he can8 refer to the numbers.9 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, the lead into these10 numbers, have you prepared a chart showing additional11 taxation?12 THE COURT: No, I will not let that in. If you13 want to prepare a chart with the figures about what you14 say is ultimately what you will say to the jury is no15 taxable income, I will not let that in in that fashion16 because that is a fait accompli.17 MR. TRABULUS: May I make a suggestion and that18 is you take that exhibit back, make him cross out the19 words "additional tax income," re-number it, give it to20 the witness and let him help them so the jury sees it is21 an additional income.22 MR. WHITE: Why don't you hand him another copy23 of this and ask him to look on it and we don't have to24
make any reference to it, they will think it is a
25 completely new document.

1 MR. TRABULUS: As long as it is a new number.2 THE COURT: Will you be offering it in evidence?3 MR. WHITE: No.4 MR. TRABULUS: They already heard what it is.5 THE COURT: I don't know if they heard what it6 is.7 MR. TRABULUS: I think they did.8 MR. WALLENSTEIN: White it out and call it9 1404-B.10 MR. WHITE: I can submit it to him under another11 form if that's what you want.12 THE COURT: Hand it to him under another form.13 MR. TRABULUS: Thank you, Your Honor.14 (End side bar.)15 THE COURT: Are you withdrawing that document?16 MR. WHITE: Yes, Your Honor.17 BY MR. WHITE:18 Q Okay, Mr. Rosenblatt, let me give you Exhibit 1404-C

19 which you can keep there for your reference.20 Now, when we left off you told us that the21 general ledger for Who's Who Worldwide for 1991 ended in22 the month of July; is that right?23 A Yes.24 Q From the other books and records of the company for25 that year, were you able to calculate a total amount of

1 expenses that were charged to that loan account for 1991?2 A Yes.3 Q Can you tell us what that was?4 A $145,499.5 Q Now, if you could take a look at 658-B, what is that?6 A The general ledger as of December 31, 1992 for Who's7 Who Worldwide Registry, Inc.8 THE COURT: Just one minute now.9 This is the general ledger of Who's Who Worldwide10 for what?11 MR. WHITE: For 1992.12 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.13 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I have copies of the14 relevant pages to hand to the jury.15 THE COURT: It's in evidence, correct?16 MR. WHITE: Yes.17 THE COURT: Yes.18 BY MR. WHITE:19 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, can you first tell us what20 page --21 THE COURT: Well, let's just wait for a couple of22 minutes and let them get these things in their books, if23 they want to do it.24 Okay, you can proceed.25 MR. WHITE: Thank you.

1 BY MR. WHITE:2 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, can you tell us what page the loan3 account is on that document?4 A It starts on page 3 near the bottom. It is shown as5 account number 1200. It should be all the way on the left6 toward the bottom of the page.7 Q And it's entitled "loans and
exchanges, BG."8 A That's correct.9 Q Have you done an analysis of the total expenses10 charged to Mr. Gordon's loan account for that year?11 A Yes, I have.12 Q Can you tell us what that total is?13 A The net increase in the account is $237,078.14 Q Can you tell us what appeared in the credit column15 for that year?16 A On page 4 there is a couple of reclassification17 entries.18 Q And again tell us what a reclassification is?19 A Where they took it out of the loan account and20 charged it to something else, a different category of21 expense, possibly.22 Q Aside from reclassification, are there any other23 credits to the loan account for this year?24 A Yes. On August 31st, $1,992, there appears to be a25 100 credit, cash received. It appears to be a health

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1973 Rosenblatt-direct/White

1 insurance reimbursement, I imagine. That is on page 5,2 about a third of the way down.3 Q The date is August 31, 1992?4 A Yes.5 Q Aside from reclassifications, are there any other6 credits for that year?7 A On page 6, November 30, 1992, there's another8 insurance refund of 1,037.25, about a third of the way9 down, page 6, under the credit column. On December 31,10 1992, on the same page 6, there's a reduction of11 313,086.20. And right below that also on December 31st12 there appears to be another medical reimbursement of $148.13 Q Now, let's focus for a moment on that $313,00014 credit. Have you done an analysis of what constituted15 that $313,000 credit?16 A Yes.17 Q Could you tell us what made up that credit?18 A These were the two checks issued to Dr. Richard19 Grossman for,
I believe, $156,500 and something, totaled20 $313,086.20.21 Q Can you explain how that transaction worked?22 A Well, basically the loan account of Bruce Gordon is23 being reduced by this amount that was paid to Dr. Grossman24 and as I recall Dr. Grossman's testimony he indicate that25 he loaned the money back to Who's Who to publish, I

1 believe it was a new book or the magazine. I don't2 exactly recall.3 Q And when does that reflect that that entry was made?4 A December 31, 1992.5 Q And the total amount is $313,000?6 A Right, yes.7 Q Approximately.8 Let me show you Exhibit 597 and 598-A which are9 in evidence. Those are the checks from Dr. Grossman back10 to Who's Who Worldwide, right?11 A Yes, that's correct.12 Q
And approximately how much do those add up to?13 A 235,911.20.14 Q When were those checks sent back to Who's Who15 Worldwide?16 A One check dated January 5th of 1993 for $200,000,17 that's check number 3195. And there's a second check18 dated January 25th of 1993, number 723, for $35,911.20.19 Q So based on the documents and the testimony in the20 checks, can you explain the transfers of money out to the21 Grossmans and back to Who's Who and how that was treated22 on the books?23 A On the books of Who's Who?24 Q Yes.25 A $400,000 salary was paid to Dr. Grossman. Two checks

1 are issued which was net of taxes of, I believe, federal2 income taxes were withheld on it. They totaled $313,086.3 Dr. Grossman, I believe, testified that he had
to4 -- he was asked by Mr. Gordon to return the money to5 assist in the publication of the Who's Who book and Mr. --6 and Dr. Grossman prior to sending the money back had his7 accountant figure out how much additional taxes were owed8 on the money. And it turned out that he just returned the9 239 -- $235,000 back to Who's Who.10 Q And the 313 that was credited to the loan account,11 was that done before or after Dr. Grossman sent back the12 $235?13 MR. TRABULUS: Objection to form, Your Honor.14 THE COURT: Overruled.15 A According to the general ledger it was credited to16 Mr. Gordon's loan account, December 31, 1992 which would17 be prior to the checks coming back.18 Q Now, look at Exhibit 660.19 What is 660?20 A It's the general ledger for Who's Who Worldwide21 Registry, Inc., as of December 31, 1993.22 Q And can you tell
us what page Mr. Gordon's loan23 account is on?24 A It starts at the very bottom of page 3. It's25 indicated as account number 1200, all the way on the

1 left-most column.2 MR. WHITE: Okay. Your Honor, I'll hand out the3 relevant pages to the jury.4 THE COURT: Yes.5 You say it starts at page 3?6 THE WITNESS: Very bottom, about the fifth line7 up from the bottom.8 BY MR. WHITE:9 Q So on page 3 where it says "loans and exchanges, BG,"10 is that where it begins?11 A Yes.12 Q Now, have you calculated what the total amount of13 expenses charged to Mr. Gordon's personal loan account for14 1993 was?15 A Yes, I have.16 Q Can you tell us what that is?17 A $132,865.18 Q Now, if you could look at
the last entry for the loan19 account dated December 31, 1993. Do you see that?20 A Yes, I do.21 Q Could you tell us -- and that's a credit; is that22 correct?23 A That's correct.24 Q Tell us what that is?25 A There's a credit amount of $22,920.69 which the

1 description of the entry is "partial payment of loan for2 M. Reffsin, from PR BG."3 Q Now, can you tell us what that refers to?4 A That would indicate an amount being taken out of the5 loan account being charged to his payroll to his salary.6 Q So in other words, money that went to Mr. Gordon and7 rather than calling it a loan, they are calling it a8 salary?9 A That's correct.10 THE COURT: Hold it a minute, please.11 Excuse me a minute. Come up, Counsel.

12 (An unrelated matter was taken by the Court.)13 THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. White.14 BY MR. WHITE:15 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, if you could turn to page 27 of16 that which is not in the jurors' handout --17 A Yes.18 Q -- And if you look under account 7210, it's entitled19 "payroll officer." Do you see that?20 A Yes, I do.21 Q If you look at the last entry for December 31, 1993,22 can you tell us what that is?23 A A deduction is taken for -- the account of the24 payroll to officer account is increased by 41,430.30.25 Q And in layman's terms, what does that mean?

1 A Salary to the officer.2 Q And that increase is on what date?3 A December 31, 1993.4 Q Let me show you Exhibit 796-A through H.5 Now, what are those?6 A (Perusing.) 796-A is the cash disbursements journal7 for Who's Who Worldwide Registry for the month of January8 of 1994.9 796-B is the cash disbursement journal for Who's10 Who Worldwide Registry for the month of February of 1994.11 Q Without going through all of them, if you could page12 through them all and tell us what period it covers.13 A (Perusing.) It starts on January 1, 1994 on Exhibit14 796-A and goes through August 31, 1994 on 796-H.15 Q Do the books on Who's Who Worldwide reflect the loan16 accounts for Mr. Gordon in 1994?17 A Yes.18 Q Have you made -- are the credits and debits to the19 loan account all located in one document for that year for20 that company?21 A No, they are not.22 Q Have you prepared or reviewed a summary of all the23 various accounting entries related to that loan account24 for that
year?25 A Yes, I have.

1 Q Let me show you Government's Exhibit 1500 for2 Identification.3 What is that?4 A This is a summary of the loan account at Who's Who5 Worldwide for Bruce Gordon for the 1994 year.6 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers7 Exhibit 1500.8 THE COURT: Any objection?9 MR. TRABULUS: Bear with me for a moment. This10 was just given to me this morning, Your Honor, and I would11 just like to check through this one.12 THE COURT: Very well.13 MR. TRABULUS: No, I have no objection.14 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1500 in15 evidence.16 (Government's Exhibit 1500 received in evidence.)17 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I don't mean to delay18 things but there is an issue we need to discuss briefly at19 the side bar, just a follow-up to what we discussed20 previously.21 THE COURT: Very well. Come up.22 (Side bar.)23 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the issue is 1500 is24 first in a packet of charts and summaries that we have and25 in light of our discussion before some of them contain the

1 language "taxable income," so I just wanted some guidance2 how you want me to handle it.3 THE COURT: Well, take them off. Remove it,4 delete it.5 MR. WHITE: I'll have to cross them out.6 THE COURT: Cross them out, make sure they are7 not legible.8 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Are these published to the9 jury?10 THE COURT: Not yet.11 MR. WHITE: Okay. I will have to sit down and12 cross them out.13 THE COURT: Have somebody else do it. You have14 all of these people there.15 MR. WHITE: Okay.16 (End side bar.)17 MR. WHITE: Okay.18 Your Honor, may I hand out Exhibit 1500 to the19 jury?20 THE COURT: Yes.21 BY MR. WHITE:22 Q Now, can you tell us what sort of items were charged23 to Mr. Gordon's loan account for 1992 Who's Who Worldwide24 for 1984?25 A Some insurance policies, American Express bills, car

1 payments for 1994.2 Q Now, have you calculated the total amount of expenses3 charged to this account for 1994?4 A Yes.5 Q Can you tell us what that is?6 A $141,025.7 Q Can you tell us what is the last date on which8 something is charged to the loan account for Worldwide in9 this year?10 A 6/30/94. Actually that is a journal entry. Do you11 mean the last item specifically that was paid?12 Q Yes.13 A March 31, 1994.14 Q Now, for this year 1994, were there any repayments of15 the loan showed on the books?16 A Yes.17 Q When was that?18 A On April 30th of 1994 there is a repayment of19 $20,000.20 Q Now, at the time that the $20,000 was repaid, can you21 tell us approximately how much was owed?22 A The balance of the account appears to have been in23 the area of $300,000.24 Q Now, let me show you Exhibit 772 --25 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Rosenblatt,

1 these amounts that were in the Bruce Gordon loan account2 for the various years, are they cumulative?3 THE WITNESS: Yes.4 THE COURT: So if in 1992
it is 237,000 and in5 1993 it is 132,000, the loan would be 132,000?6 THE WITNESS: No, in 1992, I added back the7 313,000 loan account because that was not a repayment by8 Mr. Gordon.9 THE COURT: However, leaving the credits or10 repayments out of this discussion, in these books is it11 cumulative?12 THE WITNESS: Yes.13 THE COURT: I mean, it is not $100,000, for14 example, in 1992 and another $100,000 in 1993, that would15 be 200,000.16 THE WITNESS: You don't start from zero each17 year, it's a running balance.18 THE COURT: All right. Okay.19 BY MR. WHITE:20 Q Well, just to clarify that point. Can you tell us21 year-by-year what the expenses were charged in that year,22 starting in 1991 through 1994.23 A In 1991 it was $145,499. In 1992, $237,078.24 Q Let me stop you there.25 So to get the cumulative figure would you add the

1 '92 figure to the '91 figure?2 A That's correct.3 THE COURT: Well, I don't understand that.4 In 1991, the loans were 145,000, I'm rounding5 them off.6 THE WITNESS: Right.7 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I can't8 hear you.9 THE COURT: In 1991 the loans were $145,000,10 approximately; is that correct?11 THE WITNESS: That's correct.12 THE COURT: In 1992 the loans were 237,00013 approximately, correct?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 THE COURT: Is that 145,000 plus another $237,00?16 THE WITNESS: The balance at the end would be the17 total of the two.18 THE COURT: I don't understand.19 THE WITNESS: They would be added together, yes.20 At the end of '92 the loans were a total of 145,000 and21 $237,000.22 THE COURT: So that each year's loans are23 separate and independent, additional monies?24 THE WITNESS: Additional monies that came out in25 that year through Bruce Gordon.

1 THE COURT: So it would be $145,000 loaned in2 1991, and another $237,000 loan in 1992?3 THE WITNESS: Correct.4 THE COURT: And another 232,000 loan in 1993, and5 another 141,000 loaned in 1994?6 THE WITNESS: That's correct.7 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Your Honor.8 BY MR. WHITE:9 Q Now, we were discussing the April 30, 199410 repayment. Let me show you Exhibit 772.11 What is that?12 A That's a check from Bruce Gordon date April 27, 199413 to Who's Who Worldwide Registry, Inc. for $20,000, and it14 is drawn on his account at Sterling National Bank.15 Q Now, let me show you the following Government's16 Exhibit, 716, 720, 768 and 715, which are bank records.17 Now, have you analyzed from where the money for18 that loan repayment came from?19 A Yes, I have.20 Q And can you tell us where it came from?21 A The check was drawn on the Registry Publishing22 account at Sterling National Bank on April 25th -- I'm23 sorry, April 22nd is the date of the check of 1994 in the24 amount of $25,000 to Bruce Gordon.25 Q So $25,000 from Registry Publishing to Mr. Gordon?

1 A That's correct.2 Q What happens after that?3 A That $25,000 check was deposited into Bruce Gordon's4 account at Sterling National Bank, account number5 0357971607.6 Q And what happened to it after that?7 A After that Mr. Gordon drew the check for $20,000 to8 repay Who's Who Worldwide.9 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, we are just trying to fix10 the problem that we mentioned before.11 THE COURT: Very well.12 BY MR. WHITE:13 Q Now, besides Who's Who Worldwide, did any other14 corporations pay expenses of Mr. Gordon's?15 A Yes, they did.16 Q When did this begin?17 A It began in 1994.18 Q Now, did Mr. Gordon -- have you reviewed the books19 and records of Sterling Who's Who?20 A Yes.21 Q Did Mr. Gordon have a loan account at Sterling Who's22 Who for 1994?23 A Yes, he did.24 Q Now, again, are all the accounting entries for that25 loan account contained in just one document?

1 A No, they were not.2 Q Have you prepared an analysis of all the accounting3 entries related to the loan account for Sterling for 1994?4 A Yes.5 Q Let me show you Government's Exhibit 1501, and what6 is that?7 A This is an analysis of the loan account to Bruce8 Gordon and Sterling Who's Who for the period January 1,9 1994 through November 30, 1994.10 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, if I can just speak to11 counsel for a minute.12 THE COURT: Yes.13 (Counsel confer.)14 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government would15 offer Exhibit 1501.16 THE COURT: Any objection?17 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No, Your Honor.18 MR. TRABULUS: No, Your Honor.19 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1501 in20 evidence.21 (Government's Exhibit 1501 received in evidence.)22 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I would like to hand out23 not just 1501 but the series of charts that are to come24 for the jury to look at. At this point we'll just look at25 1501.

1 THE COURT: These are not in evidence?2 MR. WHITE: Not yet.3 THE COURT: Well, how can you give them to the4 jury unless there is a consent by counsel.5 MR. WHITE: Do you want me to do it one by one?6 THE COURT: Yes. Unless counsel consent to save7 time.8 Mr. White, do you want to speak to Mr. Trabulus9 and Mr. Wallenstein?10 (Counsel confer.)11 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, if we can just have a12 couple minutes, we might be able to expedite this.13 THE COURT: Why don't we take a recess. How long14 will it take?15 MR. TRABULUS: Two minutes, maybe less.16 THE COURT: We'll go with two minutes. I want to17 tell you that I think the jury is very patient and you've18 been following the testimony with close attention, even19 though it is not easy and it is not very -- and sometimes20 it is complex and involves terms you are not used to21 dealing with, nor am I. But I've noticed that all of you22 are listening extremely carefully and I'm very23 appreciative of that because that's your role. That's24 what you have to do even if all of it isn't as exciting25 you see in the movies or on television, especially what's

1 going on today -- that's another matter altogether I mean.2 MR. TRABULUS: No objection.3 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I have no objection, Your4 Honor.5 THE COURT: Thank you very much. You may give6 out all the exhibits to the jury.7 All right, it looks like you can proceed.8 BY MR. WHITE:9 Q Now, is 1501 the summary of your Sterling loan10 account for 1994; is that right?11 A Yes, it is.12 Q Tell us first the total amount of expenses charged to13 the loan accounts for that company for 1994?14 A In round numbers, $106,846.15 Q And can you tell us what month of 1994 those expenses16 were first charged? What's the earliest one?17 A The earliest item is March 12, 1994.18 Q And can you tell us just in brief summary what sort19 of expenses were paid out of that loan account?20 A A lot of American Express, NY Star Leasing and21 payments to Bruce Gordon.22 Q Now, if you could look at the entry for November 29,23 1994, a check to American Express.24 Do you see that?25 A Yes, I do.

1 Q If you look at the description there, can you tell us2 how that check was treated in the books of the3 corporation?4 A The actual check amount was $11,670.83. Of that5 amount $10,207.78 were charged to Bruce Gordon's loan6 account. 364.33 was charged to entertainment expense, and7 $1,098.45 were charged to travel expense.8 Q And in layman's terms, what does that mean?9 A In effect the American Express bill was part business10 and part personal.11 Q And the personal part was put in what account?12 A The personal part was put in Bruce Gordon's loan13 account. The expenses were put in their appropriate14 categories.15 Q Have you reviewed the books of a company called Who's16 Who Executive Club?17 A Yes.18 Q Did Mr. Gordon have a loan account with that company19 for 1994?20 A I believe all I remember seeing from Who's Who21 Executive Club were bank records and there were notations22 on the check register and/or the checks of moneys that23 were considered loans.24 Q Let me show you Exhibit 1502.25 Is that a summary of the expenses paid to the

1 Executive Club for that year?2 A Yes.3 MR. WHITE: The government offers 1502.4 THE COURT: Any objection?5 MR. TRABULUS: No objection.6 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1502 in7 evidence.8 (Government's Exhibit 1502 received in evidence.)9 BY MR. WHITE:10 Q Now, can you tell us what items were paid for by11 Who's Who Executive Club for Mr. Gordon in 1994?12 A There's a large payment to American Express and there13 are two checks drawn to Bruce Gordon.14 Q And if you look at the entry
for 8/23/94, what is15 that amount?16 A $47,487.83.17 Q And that is made payable to who?18 A American Express.19 Q And do you recollect from the testimony what sort of20 charges were on the American Express bill at that time?21 A That was the trip to Europe to I believe it was22 France and Italy.23 Q Now, if you look at the top entry for 8/16/94 in the24 description column, can you tell us what that check said25 on it?

1 A That check was payable to Bruce Gordon. It was2 cashed and it was exchanged for a money order payable to3 the IRS.4 Q Now, does the IRS accept checks in payment of taxes?5 A Yes.6 Q Does it accept corporate checks in payment of taxes?7 A Yes.8 Q Tell us the total amount of expenses paid
for9 Mr. Gordon by Who's Who Executive Club in 1994?10 A $5,498,783.11 Q Have you analyzed the bank records and books of a12 company called Registry Publishing?13 A Yes.14 Q Did Registry Publishing pay expenses of Mr. Gordon in15 1994?16 A Yes, they did.17 Q Take a look at Exhibit 1503 and tell me what that is18 (handing)?19 A This is a schedule of monies paid to or on behalf of20 Bruce Gordon out of Registry Publishing.21 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, we offer the Government's22 Exhibit 1503.23 THE COURT: Any objection.24 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No objection.25 THE COURT: Mr. Trabulus?

5 (Government's Exhibit 1503 received in evidence.)6 BY MR. WHITE:7 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, can you tell us what is the earliest8 entry charged to the loan account for this year?9 A March 25, 1994.10 Q Now, if you look at the entry for 7/25/95 --11 A Yes.12 Q -- And the description, could you tell us what that13 entry means?14 A That should be 7/25/94.15 Q Okay. And tell us what it refers to?16 A It is a $4,000 check issued to Bruce Gordon.17 Q And do the bank records indicate what it was for?18 A Yes. I believe it was the check stub indicated that19 it was to pay rent, April 1994.20 Q And if you look down two entries to the one on June21 1, 1994, what is that check for?22 A You mean June 10, 1994?23 Q I'm sorry, yes.24 A Yes, that's the payment of $12,500 to Bruce Gordon25 and that was to pay rent to Publishing Ventures.

1 Q And the October 17, 1994 entry?2 A That's a $27,000 check to American Express.3 Q And what does the check stub say it is for?4 A It's for Bruce Gordon, personal.5 Q Tell us the total amount of expenses Mr. Gordon's6 paid by Registry Publishing in 1994?7 A $74,815.83.8 Q Now, have you calculated what the total amount of9 personal expenses paid by all of these corporations for10 Mr. Gordon in 1994 was?11 A Yes.12 Q What was it?13 A $373,675.14 Q Now, have you calculated the total amount of personal15 expenses paid by all of these corporations for Mr. Gordon16 between 1991 and 1994?17 A I could add them up.18 Q If you can give us a rough figure.19 A Close to $900,000.20 THE COURT: That's 1991 through 1993?21 THE WITNESS: 1994.22 THE COURT: Including 1994?23 THE WITNESS: Right, four years.24 THE COURT: The four years is what approximate25 total?

1 THE WITNESS: Approximately $900,000.2 BY MR. WHITE:3 Q And putting aside the $313,000 credit related to the4 Dr. Grossman money, putting that aside, could you tell us5 how much Mr. Gordon repaid to any of these corporations6 between 1991 and 1994?7 A Well, there was a one entry of $20,000, however, we8 saw that came from another corporation. But we are giving9 him credit for it because we are charging it as a loan10 from the other corporation as income.11 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you Exhibit 430 through12 482 in evidence which are American Express receipts for13 Mr. Gordon between 1990 and 1995.14 Have you reviewed those exhibits?15 A Yes, I have.16 Q And have you prepared a summary of the expenses and17 the payments of that American Express account?18 A Yes.19 Q Let me show you Exhibit 1504-A through F and 1507-A20 through G?21 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I misspoke before, it's22 1507-A through H.23 Q Now, have you reviewed that, Mr. Rosenblatt?24 A Yes.25 Q Let's start with 1504 and the letters following it.

1 What is 1504?2 A 1504 is a summary of all the charges on the American3 Express card from November of 1990 through March 21st of4 1995.5 Q And the first page of 1504 is a cumulative summary;6 is that correct?7 A A summary, yes.8 Q And the letters that follow are for each year?9 A That's correct.10 Q And 1507 is what?11 A 1507 are the payments that were made to American12 Express.13 Q And is there one for each year and company?14 A Yes, there is.15 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers16 1504 inclusive and 1507 inclusive.17 THE COURT: Any objection?18 MR. TRABULUS: No.19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No.20 THE COURT: 1504-A through F. 1507-A through H,21 in evidence.22 (Government's Exhibits 1504-A through F received23 in evidence.)24 (Government's Exhibits 1507-A through H received25 in evidence.).

1 BY MR. WHITE:2 Q Now, if you can look at 1504 -- well, first of all,3 the time periods by which you calculated the expenses are

4 not the calendar years; is that correct?5 A That's correct.6 Q Why did you do it that way?7 A They go by the statement date so they would be easier8 to follow.9 Q Looking at 1504, have you categorized the various10 types of expenses charged on the American Express card?11 A Yes.12 Q What different categories do you have there?13 A We broke it up into restaurants is one. The second14 one was clothing, jewelry and gifts. Third was artwork,15 home furnishings, general merchandise, and the fourth16 category was hotel and travel.17 Q Tell us what the grand total of purchases on this18 card from November of '90 through March of 1995 was.19 A $411,853.29.20 Q And can you tell us how much was charged in each of21 those categories that you just described?22 A Restaurants was $17,868.71.23 Clothing, jewelry and gifts, $188,219.59.24 The artwork category was $110,408.14.25 Hotel and travel, $95,356.85.

1 Q Now, if you could go to 1507-A. And you said that2 was the summary of how those bills were paid; is that3 correct?4 A That's correct.5 Q Tell us for 1990 how was Mr. Gordon's American6 Express paid?7 A It was paid out of Who's Who Worldwide Registry and8 it was charged to his loan account.9 Q And if you look at 1507-B, and tell us from 1991 how10 was Mr. Gordon's American Express paid?11 A Also out of Who's Who Worldwide Registry and again12 charged to his loan account.13 Q Looking at 1507-C, can you tell us who paid14 Mr. Gordon's American Express bill in 1992?15 A It was again Who's Who Worldwide Registry, and of the16 total, of the total of $52,552.91 in payments, $52,027.6317 were charged to loan accounts, and $525.28 were charged to18 another account we couldn't identify.19 Q And 1507-D, that's the payment summary for 1993.20 Can you tell us how much or how that was paid?21 A It was also paid out of Who's Who Worldwide22 Registry. The total of 119,314.36 was paid. Of that23 amount $65,976.91 were charged to his loan account,24 $41,184.60 were charged to travel expense, $11,993.85 was25 charged to American Express expense, and $159 was charged

1 to computer supplies expense.2 Q Now, the last three categories you mentioned, what3 type of expenses are those -- what type of accounts are4 those?5 A Those are expenses claimed by the corporation to6 reduce its income.7
Q Now, if you look at 1507-E through H, does that cover8 the payments for 1994?9 A Yes, they do.10 Q Now, why is it broken up into four pages?11 A Well, because different companies were paying the12 American Express bills in 1994.13 Q Let's start with 1507-E.14 How much -- what is the total charges paid by15 Who's Who Worldwide to American Express in 1994?16 A $18,003.83.17 Q How much of that was charged to Mr. Gordon's loan18 account?19 A $4,462.98.20 Q What is the date of the payment by Who's Who21 Worldwide to American Express?22 A February 28th of 1994.23 Q Now, did Sterling Who's Who pay any of his Amex bills24 in 1994?25 A Sterling Who's Who, yes, that would be Exhibit

1 1507-F.2 Q How much
did they pay?3 A $61,481.74.4 Q How much was charged to his loan account?5 A $60,018.69.6 Q Now, look at 1507-G.7 Did Who's Who Executive Club pay his American8 Express bills in '94?9 A Yes, they paid one bill.10 Q How much was it?11 A $47,487.83.12 Q And what part of that was charged as a loan to13 Mr. Gordon?14 A The entire amount.15 Q And look at 1507-H.16 Did Registry Publishing pay any of his American17 Express bills in '94?18 A Yes.19 Q How much?20 A $27,315.83.21 Q How much of it was charged as a loan to Mr. Gordon?22 A The entire amount.23 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, this would be a24 convenient time to break if you want.25 THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll take a

1 ten-minute recess. Please don't discuss the case. Please2 keep an open mind.3 Please recess yourselves.4 (Jury exits.)5 (Recess taken.)6 (Jury enters.)7 BY MR. WHITE:8 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, could you go back to 1504-B, as in9 Boy, and those are the charges to the American Express10 account for December 1990 through December of 1991, right?11 A Yes.12 Q And if you look on the second and third pages of that13 exhibit, there are certain entries that are shaded. Can14 you tell us why they are shaded?15 A They were shaded to highlight them because that is16 around on or about the time that one of the Form 433s was17 submitted to the collection division.18 Q Of the IRS?19 A Of the IRS.20 Q Let me show you Government's Exhibit 404 which is in21 evidence.22 THE COURT: Just one minute now, please.

23 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, may I just have a24 moment?25 THE COURT: Yes. I've asked for the same moment,

1 so it's all right.2 MR. TRABULUS: That's Exhibit 404?3 MR. WHITE: Yes, 404.4 THE COURT: You may proceed.5 MR. WHITE: If I may put up the enlargement of6 Exhibit 404 for the jury to read.7 THE COURT: Now, what is 404 again?8 MR. WHITE: It is the September 16, 19919 collection information statement filed by Mr. Gordon.10 BY MR. WHITE:11 Q Now, the Form 433 is September 16, 1991, so the12 shaded period covers what time period in relation to the13 form?14 A From approximately a month before to a month after.15 Q Now, if you could look at box 22 which is on page 216 of the form, does it disclose there that Mr. Gordon had an17 American Express card?18 A No.19 Q From your review of the records in evidence in the20 case, did he have an American Express card at that time?21 A Yes, he did.22 Q And if you look at page 3, are there liabilities23 listed there for Mr. Gordon?24 A Yes, there are. You are referring to line 35?25 Q Yes.

1 A Yes.2 Q Are any of the loans from Who's Who Worldwide that3 you've discussed this morning listed on that form?4 A Yes.5 Q Now, at this point in time in September of 1991, can6 you compare the size of his debt of his loan to the7 company Who's Who relative to the debts that are listed on8 this form?9 A (Perusing.) I don't know what exhibit it is for the10 loan account for 1991.

11 Q (Handing.) It should be on the summary chart you are12 using for your reference to 1404-C; is that correct?13 A Well, the total amount of payments made in 1991 is on14 that form.15 Q Tell us what that is.16 A Approximately $145,000.17 Q And would that be more or less than all but one of18 the liabilities listed on this form?19 A It would be all but one. The only larger would be a20 Bank of New York for $275,000.21 Q Look at page 4 where it says necessary living22 expenses, lines 49 through 59.23 A Yes.24 Q Tell us what Mr. Gordon said his total monthly25 expenses were.

1 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, Your Honor. It says2 "necessary living expenses." He's characterizing it as3 to total monthly expenses.4 THE COURT: Yes, sustained.5 BY MR. WHITE:6 Q Tell us what Mr. Gordon lists there under necessary7 monthly expenses?8 A To break it up or just the total?9 Q Just the total.10 A $3,385.11 Q And that's in lines 49 through 57, it is broken down12 into categories, is that right, of types of expenses?13 A Yes.14 Q And line 58 which reads "other expenses," can you15 tell us what that total is?16 A $175.17 Q Now, go back to Exhibit 1504-B, just a summary of18 American Express charges. Tell us what or how much19 Mr. Gordon charges on his American Express between August20 and October of 1991.21 A Approximately $9,000 is in the shaded area.22 Q Let me show you Exhibit 402 in evidence, that is an23 installment agreement between Mr. Gordon and the IRS.24 What is the date of that agreement?25 A September 24, 1991.

1 Q And how many days after this collection information2 statement is that?3 A Eight days.4 Q Now, take a look at 1504-B and tell us in those days5 between September 16th and September 24th how much6 Mr. Gordon spent on clothing?7 A Approximately $3,500.8 Q That's in eight days, correct?9 A Well, the American Express charges are all on10 September 20th and 21st.11 Q And how does that compare -- that's just for12 clothing, correct?13 A That's correct.14 Q How does that compare to the total necessary living15 expenses for the entire month listed on this form?16 A It's higher.17 Q Let me show you Exhibit 405.18 Now, 405 is the collection information statement?19 A Yes.20 Q And what is it dated?21 A
July 8, 1993.22 Q And if you could look at the top of page 2, box 14,23 is there an American Express gold card account listed24 there?25 A No.

1 Q From your review of the exhibits in evidence, did2 Mr. Gordon have an American Express gold account in July3 of 1993?4 A Yes, he did.5 Q If you take a look at box 28 where it says6 liabilities, are any loans from Who's Who Worldwide listed7 there?8 A No.9 Q From your review of the exhibits in evidence, were --10 did Mr. Gordon have a loan account with Who's Who11 Worldwide at this time?12 A Yes, he did.13 Q Can you give us an approximate figure of how much in14 expenses had been charged to the loan account by that15 time?16 A Just in that year?

17 Q No, cumulative.18 A I would have to see the loan account for 1993.19 Q Well, let me show you Exhibit 660 which I think is20 what you're looking for for 1993.21 A Yes. (Perusing.) The balance in the loan account as22 of July 19, 1993, according to Exhibit 660, is23 $200,395.65.24 Q And that is not listed on this form, is it?25 A No.

1 Q Now, if you look at the last page where it says2 "necessary living expenses," could you tell us what the3 total monthly necessary living expenses listed there is?4 A $2,520.5 Q And if you could turn to Exhibit 1504-D, and look on6 page 2, the shaded portion. The shaded portion covers7 what time period relative to July of 1993?8 A It starts May 22nd which would be approximately six9 weeks before and goes through September 19th which is10 approximately two months after.11 Q Okay.12 And tell us approximately how much was charged on13 Mr. Gordon's American Express account for that period?14 A Approximately $36,000.15 Q Let me show you Exhibit 420. That's an offer and16 compromise submitted by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Reffsin in July17 of 1993, correct?18 A It looks like it is dated August 9th of 1993.19 Q Would you look on the top of page 420. The date on20 the cover letter says what?21 A July 27, 1993.22 Q Now, if you can follow along while I read from the23 last two lines of page 1. It says "the offer presented is24 based on the sum of money which he feels he can borrow.25 He has no other assets."

1 Now, if you turn two pages onto 420-A, can you2 tell us what the sum of money offered is?3 A $150,000.4 Q Now, in July of 1993, can you tell us how much5 Mr. Gordon had actually borrowed from Who's Who Worldwide?6 A It was approximately 200,000, I think it is.7 Q Now, if you can turn to 420-E. That's a projection8 of income and expenses, correct?9 A Yes.10 Q And are any loans from Who's Who Worldwide listed11 there?12 A No.13 Q And for the income portion, does it indicate anywhere14 that Mr. Gordon would be receiving sufficient amounts to15 offset the amounts in his loan account?16 A No.17 Q Based upon this schedule 420-E, is the amount of18 money that Mr. Gordon projects he will earn sufficient to19 cover his then disclosed liability?20 A Are you talking about the three-and-a-half million?21 Q No. Let me rephrase the question.
22 On this schedule based on the projected income,23 is that going to be sufficient to pay the liabilities that24 are listed here?25 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, Your Honor.

1 THE COURT: Overruled.2 A The liabilities listed on this form?3 Q Yes.4 A On this -- (perusing.) I don't know if I understand5 your question.6 Q Then I'll rephrase it.7 Let's move onto something else.8 Take a look at Exhibit 406. That's a December9 1993 collection information statement.10 Again, if you look at page 2, box 14, is there an11 American Express gold card listed there?12 A No.13 Q From your review of the exhibits in evidence, did14 Mr. Gordon have an American Express gold card at this15 time?16 A Yes.17 Q And box 28 on page 3, are any loans from Who's Who18 Worldwide listed on that form?19 A No.20 Q And the necessary living expenses for 1994, can you21 tell us what those approximately add up to?22 A About $5,200.23 Q And if you could look at the last one, I'll read it,24 it says box 51 "other expenses, specify." "Clothes,25 cleaning, etcetera, $200 per month." Is that right?

1 A Yes.2 Q Let me show you Exhibit 824 which is already in3 evidence. For 1994 -- and if you can't see that you may4 step down -- starting with the month of June 1994, one5 month prior to the filling out of this collection6 information statement, could you just read the monthly7 charges for us.8 A Starting with June?9 Q Yes.10 A June is $3,012.91.
11 July is $47,392.51.12 August, $9,614.10.13 September, $27,215.83.14 October, $12,270.83.15 November, $18,042.43.16 And December, $10,427.30.17 Q Tell us the total amount charged in 1994 on the18 chart?19 A Approximately $183,000.20 Q If you can look at the binder at Exhibits 474 and 47521 in front of you.22 A I have it.23 Q And if you could just review the expenses charged to24 Mr. Gordon's portion of this account for this time period,25 and tell us what they reflect?

1 A (Perusing.) They reflect the expenses in Paris,2 Italy, there's Bloomingdale's, New York, in Manhattan, I3 guess, Park Avenue Cafe in New York, and then it appears4 to be all other charges in Paris and in Italy.5 Q And if you
could look on page 2 of that, the entry6 for -- entry number 36. Does that indicate a charge at7 the Ritz in Paris?8 A Yes, it does.9 Q And if you look on 475, where are the charges10 originating from in that month?11 A Starts off in Italy and then there's a couple of12 restaurants in Manhattan, and other items in the local13 area.14 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you Exhibit 421.15 Now, 421 is a letter from Frank Gagliardi, IRS16 revenue officer to Mr. Gordon in care of Mr. Reffsin on17 November 24, 1993.18 Do you see that, Mr. Rosenblatt?19 A Yes, I do.20 Q And from reviewing the letter, does it request21 certain categories of information?22 A Yes, it does.23 Q And let me also show you Exhibit 423 which were the24 documents provided in response to 421.25 Now, Mr. Rosenblatt --

1 MR. WHITE: Actually, Your Honor, I apologize,2 there was an exhibit I didn't mark which I should have3 which would not be comprehendible to the jury unless we do4 that.5 THE COURT: Go ahead.6 MR. WHITE: But I have to make a copy. I have7 one unfortunately. I apologize. I got mixed up with the8 changing of all the other exhibits.9 Can we take five minutes to do that?10 THE COURT: Yes.11 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Judge.12 THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury,13 we'll take a five-minute recess.14 Please don't discuss the case. Keep an open15 mind.16 (Recess taken.)17 THE COURT: You may proceed.18 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I believe there's an19 issue with respect to the document that we want to offer.20 MR. TRABULUS: Yes, there
is, Your Honor, we21 object to 1508.22 THE COURT: May I see it?23 MR. TRABULUS: May we approach, Your Honor?24 THE COURT: All right. Come up.25 (Side bar.)

1 MR. TRABULUS: The objection I have is "response2 of Bruce Gordon and Martin Reffsin." It simply should say3 "response." This was submitted by Mr. Reffsin. It's4 true it is admissible against Mr. Gordon in several5 different aspects because Mr. Reffsin signed the power of6 attorneys, the exception could be it is admissible. But7 to say it is responsive to Bruce Gordon to call it a8 "response" suggests that Mr. Gordon saw it or was9 involved in its preparation. There is no evidence that he10 was, and the solution is to simply call it the response to11 IRS revenue officer.

12 MR. WALLENSTEIN: My objection is the converse of13 that. Mr. Reffsin acted as Mr. Gordon's attorney in fact14 under the circumstances, it's not attributable to him, but15 to Mr. Gordon. I agree with Mr. Trabulus we should take16 out the names and simply label it "response."17 THE COURT: Is this of the collection statement18 sent in response to the letter?19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: This is something that20 Mr. Rosenblatt sent.21 MR. WHITE: This response en toto included the22 last collection information statement we just looked at.23 THE COURT: What else did it include?24 MR. WHITE: I think it is in Exhibit 425, bank25 statements and various other things.

1 MR. TRABULUS: This is a summary.2 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Mr. Gagliardi sent a letter.3 This is what we got and didn't get.4 THE COURT: Excuse me. Take out "Bruce Gordon5 and Martin Reffsin, response to IRS revenue officer".6 MR. WHITE: We already redacted it that way.7 THE COURT: Good thinking.8 MR. TRABULUS: At our suggestion.9 (End side bar.)10 THE COURT: You may proceed in the short time we11 have before lunch.12 MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Your Honor.13 BY MR. WHITE:14 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you Exhibit 1508.15 Did you prepare an analysis of some of the items16 that were provided to Mr. Gagliardi in response to this17 letter?18 A I compared the items that were requested, the items19 that were provided.20 Q And does Exhibit 1508 summarize the response with21 respect to certain item numbers on Mr. Gagliardi's letter?22 A Yes.23 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the Government offers24 Exhibit 1508.

1 MR. TRABULUS: No, based on our conference, no.2 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No, Your Honor.3 THE COURT: Exhibit 1508 in evidence.4 (Government's Exhibit 1508 received in evidence.)5 MR. WHITE: If I may hand it up to the jury, Your6 Honor.7 THE COURT: Yes.8 BY MR. WHITE:9 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, I'll read from Exhibit 421 which10 is the request by Mr. Gagliardi and it begins with number11 3.12 "Original cancelled checks and bank statements13 for all accounts which you are a signatory for the months14 of April, May, June, July, August, September and October15 of 1993."16 Now, can you tell us what items were provided in17 response to that request?18 A That would basically be Exhibit 423-F which were19 checking account statements -- actually F through L.20 Q And what are those exhibits?21 A Which are checking account statements and cancelled22 checks for Bruce Gordon's account for National Westminster23 Bank.24 Q Have you reviewed bank records of other corporations25 in connection with this case?

1 A Yes, I have.2 Q Now, were there other accounts upon which -- for3 which Mr. Gordon was a signatory at this time period,4 after November of 1993?5 A Yes.6 Q Could you tell us what they were?7 A They were the Who's Who Worldwide Registry account at8 European American Bank, NatWest bank account for Registry9 Publishing, and a NatWest bank account for Publishing10 Ventures, Inc.11 Q Now, were the statements and
checks for the accounts12 of Who's Who Worldwide that Mr. Gordon was a signatory on13 provided to Mr. Gagliardi in response to this letter?14 A No.15 Q Were the checks and statements for Registry16 Publishing account for which he was a signatory provided17 to Mr. Gagliardi in response to this letter?18 A No.19 Q Were the checks and the statements for the Publishing20 Ventures account on which he was a signatory provided to21 Mr. Gagliardi in response to this letter?22 A No.23 Q Let me read item six that Mr. Gagliardi requests.24 "Verification of all monthly payments if not25 paid by your personal check."

1 Now, did you review the response to see if there2 was anything responsive to that request?3 A There was nothing provided
with reference to that4 question.5 Q And from your review of the exhibits at the trial,6 were there other monthly payments of Mr. Gordon's that7 were not paid by his personal check?8 Yes?9 A Yes.10 Q Tell us what some of those were?11 A Payments out of Who's Who Worldwide Registry and by12 Publishing Ventures, Inc.13 Q And for what kind of things?14 A All personal items.15 Q Let me read request number nine from Mr. Gagliardi's16 letter.17 "Copies of all motor vehicle registrations,18 title certificates or leasing agreements for vehicles you19 own or operate."20 Now, reviewing the response, did Mr. Gordon or21 Mr. Reffsin provide any information with respect to that22 request?23 A No, nothing was provided.24 Q And from your review of the documents in connection25 with this case, were there any
documents that would fit

1 that request?2 A Yes.3 Q And tell us what they were?4 A They were car leases. At least one car lease.5 Q For what kind of car?6 A A BMW.7 Q And were any documents with respect to the leasing of8 that BMW provided provided to Mr. Gagliardi in response to9 this letter?10 A No.11 Q Let me read from request number ten of12 Mr. Gagliardi's letter.13 "All medical and dental bills you have paid14 during the past six months."15 Now, were any medical or dental bills provided in16 response to Mr. Gagliardi's letter?17 A No.18 Q And from your review of the documents in this case,19 were there medical and dental bills paid for Mr. Gordon20 that were responsive to this request?

21 A Yes.22 Q And tell us what they were?23 A They were payments out of Who's Who Worldwide24 Registry to Dr. Fishman and Dr. Kaufman for dental25 expenses.

1 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you 424 and 425.2 And let me read from a portion of 424.3 This is a letter from Frank Gagliardi, Internal4 Revenue Service, revenue officer, on February 17, 1994,5 addressed to Bruce Gordon, care of Martin Reffsin.6 The second paragraph indicates "my review of your7 checking records discovered several unexplained items,8 including abnormal deposits totaling $15,000 in July of9 1993 and $10,613.52 in October of 1993. Please explain10 the source of these funds. In addition, there are11 likewise abnormal debits during these periods. Please12
explain these expenditures."13 Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, if you would look at 425.
14 I'll read a portion of that.15 That's a letter from Mr. Reffsin to Mr. Gagliardi16 which is undated.17 It says "pursuant to your request I have attached18 the following information for your file.19 One, copy of note that Mr. Gordon signed to Joyce20 Grossman for $15,000. Copy of note signed to Madeline21 Middlemark for $10,000."22 And then I'll skip down to the next paragraph.23 "You indicated that you wanted an explanation of24 extra checks that were disbursed by Mr. Gordon in July and25 October 1993. Unfortunately, Mr. Gordon's son died

1 unexpectedly in July of 1993 and the checks you saw were2 payments for the funeral. The son died while he was3 residing in Florida and Mr. Gordon had to pay for the body4 to be flown up from New York as well as the funeral5 costs. He borrowed the money from Joyce Grossman.6 The checks in October were to pay for medical7 costs incurred by Mr. Gordon's wife. He owes his wife8 substantial back alimony and he borrowed the money in9 October from Madeline Middlemark to pay his wife."10 Then you see Exhibit 425-A, Mr. Rosenblatt. What11 is that?12 A It's a promissory note for $15,000 between Bruce13 Gordon and Joyce Grossman.14 Q And can you tell us what Ms. Grossman's testimony was15 with respect to that promissory note?16 A She said she never made such a loan.17 Q Now, looking at the bank records that reflect the18 income that Mr. Gagliardi questioned, have you analyzed19 where that $15,000 came from?20 A Yes.21 Q Where did it come from?22 A It came from Who's Who Worldwide Registry.23 Q Let me show you Government's Exhibit 764 and 765.24 Can you tell me what those are?25 A They are debit advices from National Westminster

1 Bank.2 764 is for $10,000, dated July 30, 1993. And 7653 is $5,000, dated August 3, 1993.4 Q And explain for us what a debit advice is?5 A A debit advice shows that instead of issuing a check,6 the bank is taking money out of one account and they are7 telling you where it's going.8 Q And in this case who are they telling where it is9 going? Whose account is the money coming out of?10 A It's coming out of Who's Who Worldwide Registry, Inc.11 Q And have you reviewed Mr. Gordon's personal bank12 statements for the relevant period?13 A Yes.14 Q And
what do they reflect?15 A They reflect deposits for the same amounts.16 THE COURT: All right. Is this a good time to17 take a break, Mr. White?18 MR. WHITE: Yes, Your Honor.19 THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll recess for20 lunch. Please don't discuss the case. Keep an open21 mind. Come to no conclusions.22 We'll recess until 1:30.23 Have a nice lunch.24 (Luncheon recess taken.)25

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N23 (Whereupon, the following takes place in the4 absence of the jury.)5 THE COURT: Is this witness leaving at 3:006 o'clock?7 THE WITNESS: Yes.8 THE COURT: What are you doing after 3:00?9 MR. WHITE: We are calling another witness, one10 of the people I mentioned yesterday.

11 THE CLERK: Jury entering.12 (Whereupon, the jury at this time entered the13 courtroom.)14 THE COURT: Please be seated, members of the15 jury.16 You may proceed, Mr. White.17 MR. WHITE: Thank you.1819 DIRECT EXAMINATION (cont'd)20 BY MR. WHITE:21 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, before we broke for lunch, we were22 looking at Exhibit 425-A, a promissory note from23 Mr. Gordon to Joyce Grossman for $15,000, on July 25th,24 1993; do you see that?25 A Yes.

1 Q Now, take a look at Government's Exhibit 499-1-A.2 Tell us what 499-1-A is?3 A It is a certificate of death regarding Todd Gordon.4 Q And if you can look at box 3, could you tell us what5 the date of death is for Todd Gordon?6 A July 28th, 1993.

7 Q Could you compare that to the date on the promissory8 note, Exhibit 425-A.9 A The promissory note is July 25th, 1993.10 Q What does Exhibit 425 say the purpose of the11 promissory note was?12 A To pay for the burial expenses, I believe.13 Q According to the death certificate was Mr. Gordon's14 son dead on July 25th?15 A No.16 Q Now, Exhibit 764 and 765 are the wire transfers that17 you described for us before; is that correct?18 A That's correct.19 Q And you said that they were from Who's Who Worldwide20 for Mr. Gordon?21 A Yes.22 Q Do you know from your review of the books and records23 of Who's Who Worldwide how that expense was treated by24 Who's Who Worldwide?25 A Yes.

1 Q And how was it treated?2 A They were charged to the loan account.3 Q Okay.4 Now, if you look at Exhibit 425-B, what is that?5 A A promissory note for $10,000 dated October 1st, 19936 between Bruce Gordon and Madeline Middlemark.7 Q And the cover letter, Exhibit 425, says that that8 loan was for what purpose?9 A To pay for medical costs incurred by Mr. Gordon's10 wife. He owes his wife substantial back alimony. And he11 borrowed the money in October from Madeline Middlemark to12 pay his wife.13 Q Now, were you present for Ms. Middlemark's testimony14 earlier in this trial?15 A Yes, I was.16 Q Can you tell us what Ms. Middlemark said regarding17 this loan, this alleged loan?18 A Ms. Middlemark had no recollection of ever loaning19 Mr. Gordon money to pay for Mr. Gordon's wife's alimony or20 medical expenses.21 Q Tell us what she said with regard to this note,22 425-B?23 A She had never seen this.24 Q Now, from your review of the Who's Who Worldwide25 Bruce Gordon bank records, have you reached any conclusion

1 as to where that money actually came from?2 A The 10,000 -- with regard to Madeline Middlemark?3 Q The $10,000 in October of 1993 out of Mr. Gordon's4 account?5 A It came out of Who's Who Worldwide Registry.6 Q Let me show you Exhibit 766.7 (Handed to the witness.)8 Q What is that?9 A It is a debit advice on National Westminster Bank.10 Q Do you recognize the account number?11 A Yes. It is Bruce Gordon's account.12 Q And what sort of transfer does that debit advice13 reflect?14 A It reflects a transfer from Who's Who Worldwide

15 Registry to Bruce Gordon.16 Q For how much?17 A $5,000.18 Q And what is the date?19 A It looks like October 20th, 1993.20 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you Exhibit 427; and21 I will put the enlargement up to the jury.22 (Handed to the witness.)23 Let me read a portion of it.24 It is dated September 29th, 1994. It is from25 Mr. Reffsin to Frank Gagliardi of the IRS.

1 Dear sir: You requested information as to the2 status of payments by Mr. Bruce Gordon to -- of his3 obligation to the Department of Justice for the year4 1993. The total amount due for 1993 is $14,025. He has5 paid to date $5,500.6 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, can you tell us given what he has7 paid and what he owes, what is the amount that he still8 owes here?9 A Approximately $8,500.10 Q I will skip down to the third paragraph.11 He is going to have to borrow the money he12 offered in the offer and compromise submitted. Where13 shall he borrow this money? Perhaps he should cease14 eating.15 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, if you could turn to 1504-E, the16 schedule of the American Express charges.17 A Yes.18 Q Now, the date -- if you can turn to page 4 of that19 Exhibit?20 THE COURT: What is the number of that exhibit21 again?22 MR. WHITE: 1504-E, like in Edward.23 Q The date of this letter is September 29th, 1994.24 Could you look for the month, approximately the25 month period, beginning with August 20th, the month period

1 prior to the writing of this letter, and tell us how much2 Mr. Gordon spent on restaurants on his American Express3 card?4 A $935.71.5 The following period $364.60.6 Q And this letter says, perhaps he should cease eating;7 is that right?8 A Yes, that's what it says.9 Q Prior to that it says where shall he borrow this10 money. Do you see that?11 A Yes.12 Q Can you give us a rough approximation of how much13 money Who's Who Worldwide and Mr. Gordon's other14 corporations had loaned him up to this point in September15 of '94?16 A It was approximately $900,000.17 Q And that's from '91 --18 A From '91 through '94.19 Q If you take a look at 1507-H.20 A Yes.21 Q And the 900 some odd dollars of restaurant bills you22 mentioned before, looking at 1507-H, can you tell us if23 that money was charged to Mr. Gordon's loan account or24 business account?25 A Yes, charged to his loan account from Registry

1 Publishing.2 Q You mentioned Registry Publishing and Executive Club3 prior in his testimony. Did they pay other expenses of4 Mr. Gordon besides Who's Who Worldwide?5 A I don't understand your question.6 Q In addition to Who's Who Worldwide did Registry7 Publishing and Who's Who Executive Club pay expenses of8 Mr. Gordon?9 A Yes.10 Q Have you done an analysis of where those corporations11 got that money from?12 A Yes.13 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the14 proceedings.)15 Q Let me show you Government's Exhibit 837, which is in16 two pages.17 (Handed to the witness.)18 Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, what is Exhibit 837?19 A It is an analysis of transfers of money from Who's20 Who Worldwide Registry to other related corporations, from21 February through December of 1994.22 Q On what records was this summary prepared?23 A Based on bank records.24 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers25 837.

1 THE COURT: Any objection?2 MR. TRABULUS: Still looking at it, your Honor.3 THE COURT: All right.4 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the5 proceedings.)6 MR. TRABULUS: No.7 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No objection either.8 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 837 in9 evidence.10 (Government's Exhibit 837 received in evidence.)11 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, here is a copy for the12 Court.13 (Handed to the Court.)14 Q On the left-hand side there are three boxes that15 state Who's Who Worldwide Registry that are shaded.16 A Yes.17 Q What do they represent?18 A They represent three different bank accounts in the19 name of Who's Who Worldwide Registry. One at NatWest20 Bank, another at European American Bank, and the third is21 Republic Bank for Savings.22 Q Now, in February and March of 1995 were there -- I am23 sorry, 1994, were there transfers of funds out of those24 Who's Who Worldwide accounts?25 A Out of two of them, yes.

1 Q Okay.2 Can you explain for us where that money went?3 A Approximately 700,000 went from the Who's Who4 Worldwide Registry NatWest Bank, and was deposited to5 Sterling Who's Who at Marine Midland Bank.6 Q Let me just stop you there. That's this
transfer7 that has 150,000 on February 4th, and 550,000 on March8 11th; is that right?9 A Yes.10 Q And what other transfers are there?11 A A transfer of $500,000 from the account at European12 American Bank in the name of Who's Who Worldwide Registry,13 and that went into Sterling Who's Who at Marine Midland14 Bank.15 Q So, tell us roughly what the total going from Who's16 Who Worldwide to Sterling was?17 A 1.2 million dollars.18 Q Did any money go from Worldwide to any other19 corporations?20 A Yes.21 Q Tell us where that appears on the chart?22 A Right above where I was just reading from, you have23 an amount of $45,000 going from Who's Who Worldwide24 Registry at NatWest Bank and that goes into Registry25 Publishing, Inc., the NatWest Bank account.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

2030 Rosenblatt-direct/White

1 Q Does any money go from Worldwide to Who's Who2 Executive Club?3 A Yes, $20,000.4 Q And where does that appear?5 A That's the arrow that goes down the left side of the6 page and across at the bottom.7 Q Now, there are dotted lines on this chart. Can you8 tell us what the dotted lines represent?9 A They represent monies going back to Who's Who10 Worldwide Registry.11 Q And tell us what monies are going back to Who's Who12 Worldwide?13 A Right at the top of the chart, there is 65,000 that14 goes from Registry Publishing, NatWest Bank and is put15 back to Who's Who Worldwide Registry, NatWest Bank. There16 is also a transfer from Sterling Who's Who at Marine17 Midland Bank, $560,000, and it goes back to Who's Who18 Worldwide Registry at Republic Bank for Savings.19 Q Can you
tell us an approximate number? What is the20 net effect? What is the total that went out and the total21 that came back?22 A Approximately a million 245 thousand went out from23 Who's Who, and approximately 625,000 went back.24 Q Of the money that went from Worldwide to Sterling,25 did it go anywhere else after it arrived at Sterling?

1 A Yes.2 Q Where did it go?3 A $500,000 was transferred from Sterling Who's Who4 Marine Midland Bank, into Registry Publishing, Inc.,5 NatWest Bank.6 Q Tell us how many days after Sterling received this7 money it got sent to Registry Publishing?8 A Within the next week.9 Q Now, how many different Registry Publishing accounts,10 bank accounts are represented on this chart?11 A Four.12
Q How many different banks?13 A For different banks.14 Q Now, once Registry Publishing got this money, did it15 go to any corporations?16 A It stayed within Registry Publishing. It was17 transferred to different accounts of Registry Publishing.18 Q Did Registry Publishing transfer to any other19 corporations?20 A Yes.21 Q Where does that appear on the chart?22 A Just to the right of the middle of the chart, there23 is Registry Publishing, Inc., Marine Midland Bank. And24 from that 100,000 is transferred into Who's Who Executive25 Club, Inc. at Sterling National Bank, and $55,000 is

1 transferred to Publishing Ventures, Inc. at National2 Westminster Bank.3 Q And how many different Who's Who Executive Club4 accountings are depicted on this chart?5 A Two.6 Q And at how many different banks?7 A Two different banks, all the way on the left toward8 the bottom, you have Who's Who Executive Club, Inc. at9 National Westminster Bank, and the right of the middle of10 the chart you have Who's Who Executive Club at Sterling11 National Bank.12 Q Let me show you Exhibits 783, 786, 787, 784, 691,13 692, 695, 696, 707 and 708, 710, 711 and 701.14 Would you just take a moment and review them.15 THE COURT: Are they all in evidence?16 MR. WHITE: Yes, they are, your Honor.17 (Handed to the witness.)18 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the19 proceedings.)20 Q Just tell me when you are finished reviewing them.21 (A further pause in the proceedings.)22 A Yes.23 Q Are they some of the bank records reflecting the24 transactions set forth on this chart, 837?25 A Yes, they are.

1 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, may I show it to the2 jury?3 THE COURT: Yes.4 (Whereupon, the exhibit/exhibits were published5 to the jury.)6 Q Going back to the chart, 837, can you tell us if7 Mr. Gordon received any funds from these other8 corporations?9 A Yes, he did.10 Q Tell us starting the left side of the chart, tell us11 of any funds Mr. Gordon received.12 A They are reflected on the bottom of the chart. You13 can see from Who's Who Executive Club at National14 Westminster Bank, Mr. Gordon received $3,500.15 Q And from Sterling Who's Who?16 A From Sterling Who's Who at Marine Midland Bank,17 Mr. Gordon received either directly or indirectly18 $106,845.96.19 Q When you say directly or indirectly, what do you20 mean?21 A Either checks to him or to pay his expenses, such as22 American Express and auto expenses.23 Out of Registry Publishing at National24 Westminster Bank, Mr. Gordon received a thousand dollars.25 Right in the middle out of Registry Publishing,

1 Marine Midland Bank, Mr. Gordon received 12,000, plus his2 American Express bill of $27,315.83, for a total of3 $39,815.83.4 Out of Who's Who Executive Club, Sterling5 National Bank, Mr. Gordon received 4,000, plus an American6 Express bill paid of $47,487.83, for a total of7 $51,487.83.8 Q By the way, do you know what American Express bill9 that was that cost $47,000?10 A Yes. That was the trip to Europe.11 Q Continue.12 A Out of Registry Publishing, Inc., Sterling National13 Bank, Mr. Gordon received $32,000.14 Out of Registry Publishing, Inc. at Republic Bank15 for Savings, Mr. Gordon received $2,000.16 Q Now, can you tell us total, what is the total amount17 of funds received by Mr. Gordon from these corporations18 reflected on this chart?19 A It looks like about $235,000.20 Q Approximately?21 A Approximately.22 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, can you tell us how those monies23 transferred to Mr. Gordon were treated on the respective24 books of the respective corporations?25 A These amounts were all treated as loans.

1 Q Were any of them reported by these corporations to2 the IRS as compensation to Mr. Gordon?3 A No.4 Q What is the earliest transfer reflected on this5 chart?6 A February 4th, 1994. It should be a transfer of7 $150,000 from Who's Who Worldwide Registry at National8 Westminster Bank to Sterling Who's Who at Marine Midland9 Bank. It is to the left near the top.10 Q And is there another transfer in February of 1994?11 A Yes, there is, all way at the bottom, all the way at12 the bottom you have $20,000 on February 24th, 1994 from13 Who's Who Worldwide Registry at National Westminster Bank14 to Who's Who Executive Club at National Westminster Bank.15 Q Do you know, aside from those two February 1s, what16 is the next earliest transfer?17 A There are two transfers on March 11th of '94.18 Q Now, do you know what month Who's Who Worldwide filed19 the bankruptcy petition?20 A I believe it was March of 1994.21 Q Let me show you Exhibit 649.22 Now, what is Exhibit 649?

23 (Handed to the witness.)24 A They are copies of checks payable out of the account25 of Sterling Who's Who to the Mondrian.

1 Q Can you tell us what the Mondrian is?2 A The penthouse apartment on I believe it is East 54th.3 Q And for 1994, if you can look at Exhibit 1404-C,4 which is the document you have been using for your5 reference, can you tell us what was the total amount paid6 for the Mondrian in 1994?7 A $72,963.8 Q And by what company was that paid?9 A By Sterling Who's Who.10 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I would like to pass out11 at this time the photographs entered in evidence of the12 penthouse, 842 inclusive and 843 inclusive.13 THE COURT: Yes.14 (Whereupon, the exhibit/exhibits were published15 to the jury.)

16 Q Let me show you 611, 12, 13 and 15, which are in17 evidence.18 (Handed to the witness.)19 Now, start with 611.20 What is that?21 A 611 is a contract of sale for a condominium unit22 between Gerald Keller and Barbara Keller and Publishing23 Ventures, Inc. the property at 2 Hummingbird Road.24 Q Look at Exhibit 612, and tell us what that is?25 A It is a record of the Nassau County clerk recording a

1 mortgage for $200,000 on that property.2 Q Okay.3 Look at 613.4 What is that?5 A A record of the Nassau County clerk recording a deed6 on that property in the amount of $600,000.7 Q Finally, 615, labeled closing statement; is that8 right?9 A Yes.10 Q What kind of document is it?11 A It is a c
losing statement reflecting the closing of12 the document, the transaction is between Gerald and13 Barbara Keller and Publishing Ventures, Inc.14 Q On the first page where it says purchaser, what is15 listed?16 A Publishing Ventures, Inc., by Bruce Gordon,17 president.18 Q And if you can flip to page 3 of that document, what19 is the purchase price for the condominium?20 A I am looking at the top of page 2, it is $600,000.21 Q Okay.22 You said before there was a mortgage on the23 property?24 A That's correct.25 Q For how many?

1 A $200,000.2 Q Now, have you prepared an analysis of deposits to the3 Publishing Ventures account?4 A Yes, I have.5 Q Let me show you Exhibits 1505-A through D, and 1506-A

6 through D.7 Can you look at those and tell us what those8 are.9 (Handed to the witness.)10 A 1505-A through D are the analysis of disbursements of11 Publishing Ventures, Inc.12 Q What do you mean by disbursements?13 A Monies spent by Publishing Ventures for the years14 1992, 1505-A, 1993 is 1505-B, 1994 is 1505-C, and 1995 is15 1505-D.16 Q That's the money spent by PVI?17 A That's correct.18 Q What is Exhibit 1506?19 A That represents an analysis of deposits. To20 Publishing Ventures account at National Westminster Bank.21 1506-A is for the year 1992. 1506-B is for 1993. 1506-C22 is for 1994, and 1506-D is for 1995. But I believe it was23 only up until March 31st of 1995.24 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers25 Exhibits 1505-A through D, and 1506-A through D.

1 THE COURT: Any objection?2 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No, your Honor.3 MR. TRABULUS: No.4 THE COURT: Government's Exhibits 1505-A through5 1505-D for Dog, and 1506-A for Abel through 1506-D for6 dog, in evidence.7 (Government's Exhibits 1505-D received in8 evidence.)9 (Government's Exhibits 1506-A through 1506-D10 received in evidence.)11 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, have you prepared charts showing the12 flow of money into and out of Publishing Ventures?13 A Yes.14 (Counsel confer.)15 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you16 Government's Exhibit 1510.17 What is that?18 (Handed to the witness.)19 A That's the chart for the 1992 year. It shows on the20 left source of funds going to Publishing Ventures, and on21 the right, disposition of funds.22 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers23 1510.24 THE COURT: That's just for 1992?25 MR. WHITE: Yes.

1 THE COURT: Any objection?2 MR. TRABULUS: No, your Honor. If there is a3 small version that can be made available at some point I4 would appreciate that.5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No objection, your Honor.6 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1510 in7 evidence.8 (Government's Exhibit 1510 received in evidence.)9 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, can you step down and explain what10 this chart shows.11 A This shows that $70,000 is going from Who's Who12 Worldwide Registry was deposited into Publishing Ventures'13 account in the center where it says total deposits of14 $70,000. And out of that account of Publishing Ventures,15 $60,000 went to, it
should be Sale Groothius and Hirsch.16 Q And from the documents you reviewed before with17 respect to the closing on the home, who were Sale18 Groothius and Hirsch?19 A They were the attorneys, and I believe this was the20 deposit on the purchase.21 THE COURT: Attorneys for the seller of the22 condominium, correct?23 THE WITNESS: Correct.24 THE COURT: Correct?25 THE WITNESS: Correct.

1 THE COURT: We want to make sure we get the2 lawyers right. It is important.3 Q So, how much went into PVI and how much went out in4 '92?5 A 70,000 went in and 60,000 came out.6 Q Let me show you Government's Exhibit 1511.7 (Handed to the witness.)8 Q What is that?9 A That's an analysis again of the monies going into

10 Publishing Ventures, Inc. and being taken out of11 Publishing Ventures, Inc. for the year 1993.12 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers13 1511.14 THE COURT: Any objection?15 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No, your Honor.16 MR. TRABULUS: No objection.17 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1511 in18 evidence.19 (Government's Exhibit 1511 received in evidence.)20 Q And let's start on the left side of the chart,21 Mr. Rosenblatt. With the box that says Who's Who22 Worldwide Registry, Inc. are there transfers out of there23 to Publishing Ventures?24 A Yes.25 Q How much?

1 A $945,000.2 Q And are there any other transfers out of Who's Who3 Worldwide Registry?4 A Yes, $53,000 transferred to Bruce Gordon.5 Q Any money transferred from Mr. Gordon to Publishing6 Ventures?7 A Yes, $22,000.8 Q So, what are the total deposits to Publishing9 Ventures in 1993?10 A $967,000.11 Q Now, can you go box by box and tell us what, or how12 those funds were used?13 A In the top box there are payments regarding the14 purchase of the property going to Astoria Federal Savings15 and Loan, Gerald and Barbara Keller, Advance Abstract16 Corporation, Sale Groothius and Hirsch. And that totals17 $346,855.18 Q And the next box?19 A The next box is payment to Barbara Keller regarding20 the mortgage in the amount of $57,250.21 Q And the next box?22 A The next box is a payment to Ann Galante for real23 estate tax in the amount of $10,161 and change, and a24 payment to the Nassau County Treasurer, also for real25 estate tax, which is in the amount of $4,225.

1 Q And what is represented in the next box?2 A The next box is various improvements to the property.3 The next box refers to improvements made to the4 property. It is payments to Matchless Construction,5 approximately $216,000; to Joyce Grossman Interiors6 approximately $176,000; to Lifestyles, which was 43,0007 approximately; to St. Charles Kitchens $16,275; to Marble8 Modes $4,000, Kolson, K O L S O N, Korlenge, K O R E N G E,9 Inc., $4,300; Home Sped Window approximately $2,700;10 Amaru, A M A R U, Tile Studio, approximately $14,000; ADT11 Security Systems $500, and All Pro Painting for $8,665.12 All of those announced a total of approximately $487,000.13 Q Now, without reading all the items in the next box,14 tell us the amounts and what sort of expenditures they15 were?16 A For furnishings, carpets, I guess artwork, and some17 electronic equipment. And it totals approximately18 $31,000.19 Q And the next box?20 A Payments to either maintenance or common charges of21 the's -- to the Estates of North Hills, $7,834.22 Q And the final box.23 A The final box includes various other items, such as24 insurance, a moving company, All-Fitness, I believe is a25 gym, LILCO, and two other items that I don't actually

1 recall what they were for, totaling close to $20,000.2 Q And what is the total disbursements of PVI for that3 year?4 A Approximately $965,000.5 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you 1512. What is that?6 A A schedule of the 1994 year of the monies going into

7 and being disbursed by Publishing Ventures, Inc.8 MR. WHITE: The government offers 1512.9 MR. TRABULUS: No objection.10 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No objection.11 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1512 in12 evidence.13 (Government's Exhibit 1512 received in evidence.)14 Q Start on the left side of the chart again with source15 of funds, starting with the box that says Who's Who16 Worldwide.17 Did Who's Who Worldwide transfer any funds18 directly to Publishing Ventures?19 A Yes, $82,000.20 Q Would you point that out on the chart?21 A It is right at the top.22 Q Now, did it transfer any funds to Bruce Gordon?23 A Yes, $5,000.24 Q And did Mr. Gordon make any transfers to Publishing25 Ventures?

1 A Yes, Mr. Gordon transferred $17,500 to Publishing2 Ventures.3 Q And did Mr. Gordon receive funds from any other4 corporations?5 A Yes, he did.6 Q And where did he receive it from?7 A Mr. Gordon received $12,500 from Registry Publishing.8 Q Now, the amounts transferred by Who's Who Worldwide9 and Registry Publishing to Mr. Gordon was what?10 A $17,500.11 Q How much has Mr. Gordon paid or transferred to12 Publishing Ventures?13 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection. Asked and answered.14 THE COURT: Overruled.15 A $17,500.16 Q Does Who's Who transfer money to Sterling?17 A Yes.18 Q How much?19 A Who's Who transfers approximately $831,000 to20 Sterling.21 Q And does Sterling then transfer any money to PVI?22 A Yes, $27,000 to PVI.23 Q Does Sterling transfer money to any other24 corporation?25 A Yes. Sterling transfers $513,000 to Registry

1 Publishing.2 Q Now, does Registry Publishing send anything to PVI3 directly?4 A Yes, $55,000 to Publishing Ventures.5 Q Now, tell us what the total deposits to Publishing6 Ventures are for that year?7 A $181,562.25.8 Q Okay.9 Now, if you look on the right side under10 disposition of funds, what does it say in the first box?11 A $7,500 went to Bruce Gordon.12 Q And how much is that relative to what was paid to13 Publishing Ventures by Mr. Gordon?14 A A little less than half.15 Q And the next box reflects what?16 A $109,062.50 went to Barbara Keller for the mortgage17 payments.18 Q And if you could just tell us what each box19 represents, and the amount, without reading all the20 indifferent items.21 A $12,673 approximately to Ann Galante for real estate22 tax. Then there were payments for improvements to23 Matchless Construction, for electric, ADT Security, Joyce24 Grossman Interiors and Pro Display for approximately25 $16,000.

1 The next box would show payments for furnishings2 to Cliff Young Ltd., Harvey Electronics and Telefayan,3 T E L F A Y A N, Carpets for approximately $8,800.4 Common charges or maintenance at the Estates at5 North Hills, $5,913.6 Other expenses for All-For Fitness, LILCO,7 insurance company, and for I guess a water bill for8 approximately $3,200.9 The last box shows miscellaneous payments of10 $20,000 to Registry Publishing, to the IRS of corporate11 tax of approximately a thousand dollars, and to the New12 York State Department of Finance corporate tax of also13 approximately a thousand dollars.14 The total of the miscellaneous is approximately15 $22,000.16 Q What is the total disbursements of the year,17 $185,668.79.18 Take a look at Exhibits 1513, Mr. Rosenblatt, and19 tell me what that is?20 A It is the same as the charts we have just been21 showing for the Manhasset condominium, showing the source22 of funds going into Publishing Ventures and the23 disposition of funds coming out of Publishing Ventures.24 Q For what year?25 A For the period January 1st to March 31st, 1995.

1 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, the government offers2 Exhibit 1513.3 THE COURT: Any objection?4 MR. TRABULUS: No.5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: No, your Honor.6 THE COURT: Government's Exhibit 1513 in7 evidence.8 (Government's Exhibit 1513 received in evidence.)9 Q Start with the source of funds. Where are the funds10 coming from going into Publishing Ventures?11 A In the top box, Registry Publishing transfers $52,00012 into Publishing Ventures.13 The bottom box, we were unable to obtain the14 underlying documents for $6,000 of unknown funds that went15 into Publishing Ventures.16 Q So, the total deposits into Publishing Ventures are17 what?18 A 58,000.19 Q Tell us how that was spent by PVI.20 A In the top box approximately $51,000 went to Barbara21 Keller for the mortgage.22 In the second box around $2,200 went to Ann23 Galante for real estate tax.24 Then there was a payment of about $71 for ADT25 Security Systems.

1 $2,011 paid for the common charges or maintenance2 at the Estates at North Hills. And approximately $1,7003 went to pay Royal Insurance.4 Q What was the total amounts spent by PVI for this5 period through March 31st, '95?6 A $57,944.72.7 Q Now, the charts you just reviewed for the years '92,8 through '95, reflected deposits by Mr. Gordon to9 Publishing Ventures; is that right?10 A That's correct. I believe in only two of the years.11 Q Now, if you can take a look at Exhibit 1506-B, like12 in Boy.13 First of all, tell us what that exhibit is?14 A An analysis of deposits for Publishing Ventures to15 NatWest Bank for the year 1993.16 Q Does it have a column for deposits for Mr. Gordon?17 A Yes, it does.18 Q How much did
Mr. Gordon give to Publishing Ventures19 in that year?20 A $22,000.21 Q Now, have you performed an analysis of where22 Mr. Gordon got that $22,000?23 A Yes, I did.24 Q Tell us where?25 A It came out of his account at National Westminster

1 Bank.2 Q Now, have you performed any analysis of where the3 money came from that went into Mr. Gordon's account to pay4 that rent?5 A Yes.6 Q And where did it come from?7 A It came out of Who's Who Worldwide Registry.8 Q And how was it accounted for on the books of Who's9 Who Worldwide?10 A It was charged to the loan account.11 Q So, the money was borrowed from Who's Who Worldwide12 to pay Publishing Ventures?13 A That's correct.14 Q Now, take a look
at 1506-C. That's the deposits for15 the next year, 1994; is that correct?16 A That's correct.17 Q And how much does Mr. Gordon put in on that year?18 A He puts in $17,500.19 Q Let me show you Exhibit 770, which is a series of20 checks from Mr. Gordon's personal account and refer you to21 check number 122, and also Exhibit 709, which is a check22 from Registry Publishing.23 (Handed to the witness.)24 Q Now, look at those two checks and tell us what they25 reflect?

1 A Check number 709 is a check from Registry Publishing,2 Inc. It is a check number 1002, dated June 9th of 1994,3 payable to Bruce Gordon in the amount of $12,500.4 Exhibit 770 is a check on Bruce Gordon's account5 at Sterling National Bank. Check number 122, dated June

6 9th, 1994, payable to Publishing Ventures in the amount of7 $12,500.8 Q And can you tell us, how the dates on the two checks9 compare?10 A It is the same date.11 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, may I pass them out to12 the jury?13 THE COURT: Yes.14 (Whereupon, the exhibit/exhibits were published15 to the jury.)16 Q Now, the 12,500 that went from Registry Publishing to17 Mr. Gordon, the check you just identified, do you know how18 it was treated on Registry Publishing's books?19 A Yes, recorded as a loan.20 Q A loan from Registry Publishing to Mr. Gordon to pay21 PVI?22 A That's correct.23 Q Now, of the 17,500 that Mr. Gordon gave PVI in '94,24 how much of it did he get back?25 A He got back 7,500.

1 Q Now, can you tell us the factors that the IRS uses in2 determining whether money received by an individual3 taxpayer constitutes a loan or income?4 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.5 THE COURT: What ground?6 MR. TRABULUS: I thought it was discussed7 previously.8 THE COURT: It was, and this is what I9 permitted.10 MR. TRABULUS: I misunderstood, your Honor. The11 objection is still there.12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.13 When you say used by the IRS, where did you get14 these factors from, Mr. Rosenblatt?15 THE WITNESS: Based on case law and experience.16 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, may we approach17 again?18 THE COURT: All right. Come up.1920 (Whereupon, at this time the following took place21 at the sidebar.)22 MR. TRABULUS: I had thought, your Honor,23 sincerely when we last
left it, this is what was excluded,24 and specifically based on case law, there was a mention of25 several factors where -- cases where these factors come

1 from.2 THE COURT: I will let the witness testify that3 the IRS in the usual course of their business -- do they4 make determinations as to whether some things are a loan5 or not a loan?6 MR. WHITE: Yes, that's what this revenue agent7 does.8 THE COURT: That he uses certain factors -- that9 the IRS -- it is as if the IRS has a custom and usage in10 determining. I will instruct the jury that this is the11 IRS's determination and it is not necessarily my12 determination or the law of the United States. But I will13 certainly let them make a determination, if it is the14 usual, customary method to make a determination by the15 IRS, and he knows it, I will let him testify, even if it16 is based on case law. Yes, I will let him do that.17 MR. TRABULUS: I am still objecting.18 THE COURT: Overruled.19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: As to the factors used.20 THE COURT: Yes.21 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Not the ultimate conclusion.22 THE COURT: What I told you I will not let he23 will say is that I am now declaring that it is not a24 loan. I will not let him say that.25 He can say what the factors are involved in the

1 IRS's determination. I will let him say that. But not2 the ultimate question.3 MR. WHITE: Not his conclusion.4 THE COURT: That's right. The factors.5 MR. TRABULUS: Just for the record, I note I am6 still objecting.

7 MR. WHITE: This point I think is clear. But as8 we go along Mr. Gordon is charged with filing false tax9 returns and Mr. Reffsin is charged with the assisting of10 filing the false returns.11 THE COURT: Yes.12 MR. WHITE: Mr. Rosenblatt has to be able to13 testify that if these other terms were included as income,14 the amounts would be higher, and those are not reflected15 on the return.16 THE COURT: Yes.17 MR. WHITE: He can do that, but he can't say that18 it is my conclusion that they should be on there.19 THE COURT: Yes, he will say under IRS factors20 that they use, this is what we do.21 MR. TRABULUS: Is it necessary for me to preserve22 the point to make an objection on each point.23 THE COURT: No. I will give you a continuing24 objection which I rarely do, and that's because I am in a25 good mood today.

1 MR. WALLENSTEIN: In that case I will join in as2 well.3 THE COURT: You, too.45 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes6 place in open court.)7 THE COURT: Before you do that, I want to tell8 the jury that the government has the --9 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I am sorry, your Honor, I can't10 hear you.11 THE COURT: Before you go ahead, I am going to12 tell the jury that in every respect in all the elements of13 these counts, the government has the burden of proving14 beyond a reasonable doubt not only the guilt of the15 defendants, but all the elements involved.16 In the tax count the government has the burden of17 proving beyond a reasonable doubt what it says it is going18 to prove. And if the government says that some of these

19 things are not loans, the government has the burden to20 prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.21 What you are going to hear from this witness is22 the IRS's version of the factors that they use. That is23 to be considered by you, but it is not conclusive or24 determinative. The ultimate burden, based on all the25 evidence, is on the government to prove beyond a

1 reasonable doubt what they say is their contention.2 In this case, one of the contentions is that3 these loans were not loans. That's their burden to prove4 beyond a reasonable doubt.5 What I am permitting now is the IRS version as to6 what they consider to be loans, or the factors to be7 considered in whether some things are loans or income to8 be reported. It is not conclusive. It is their
version.9 The ultimate burden is for the government to10 prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.11 Go ahead.12 And I will give you the law on what a loan is, on13 what is not a loan, in due time.14 Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, before we get to the factors,15 let me ask, in general, if someone is loaned money, is16 that income to him?17 A Not taxable income, no.18 Q Why is that?19 A Because it is excluded, specifically excluded.20 Q Excluded by what?21 A It is not taxable as income, as a loan.22 Q And that's because you have to pay it back, right?23 A Right.24 Q Now, in your years as an IRS revenue agent, have you25 been called upon to determine whether transfers of money

1 to an individual taxpayer constitutes a loan or inco
me?2 A Yes.3 Q And are there established factors that the IRS uses4 in making that analysis?5 A Yes.6 Q Can you tell us what those factors are?7 A You would look to see the degree of corporate control8 the individual has. You would look to see --9 THE COURT: When you say the individual has, you10 mean the individual who receives the loan?11 THE WITNESS: Yes, the individual who received12 the money.13 You would look to see what the repayment history14 is. You would look to see if there are any loan documents15 or other formalized recordings of the amount owed and what16 the terms are to repay it, if there is a maturity date, if17 there is interest being charged.18 You would look at the nature of the expenses, the19 frequency of the expenses, the amount of the expenses.20 You would look at how long they are outstanding.

21 In other words, if the loan was made in year one, when was22 it repaid, or when was any effort made to repay it.23 You would also look at the ability to repay. If24 the individual is loaned the money -- can I use an example25 of this case?

1 THE COURT: No, I would rather you did not.2 THE WITNESS: If the individual doesn't have the3 ability to repay it, then it is really not a 11.4 Q Let's take the ones you have listed so far.5 The first thing you cited was the degree of6 corporate control of the person receiving the loan.7 Explain what you mean by that.8 A Does the individual receiving the money have control9 of where the money goes, how often it comes out, how much10 he takes? Or are there like any road blocks to that? Are11 there any
restrictions on that.12 Q And the greater degree of corporate control, the more13 likely to what confusion?14 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection to the form of the15 question.16 THE COURT: Overruled.17 A The greater amount of the corporate control the more18 suspicious the transaction becomes.19 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.20 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection. Move to strike.21 THE COURT: Yes. Motion granted. Strike it out.22 The IRS has these established factors, right?23 THE WITNESS: Yes.24 THE COURT: And one of them is the degree of25 control?

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.2 THE COURT: The more control that the borrower3 has, that becomes a factor in determining whether it is a4 loan? It tends to prove a loan more than not a loan,
5 together with the other factors.6 THE WITNESS: The more control would prove the
7 more not a loan.8 THE COURT: Not a loan?9 THE WITNESS: Yes.10 THE COURT: That's one of the factors?11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 THE COURT: Is there one factor more important13 than another factor?14 THE WITNESS: I think they have to be taken in15 total.16 THE COURT: Is the ability to repay one of the17 most important factors?18 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.19 THE COURT: How about an agreement to repay?20 THE WITNESS: An agreement to repay because of21 the amount of control, sometimes the documents can become22 meaningless.23 THE COURT: Okay.24 Q Another factor you mentioned were loan documents,25 what do you mean by that?

1 A Promissory note, a repayment schedule, maybe some2 kind of security agreement.3 Q And let's say the absence of loan documents would4 tend to indicate what, it was a loan or not a loan?5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Objection.6 THE COURT: Overruled.7 A It would tend to indicate it was not a loan.8 THE COURT: Although some loans are made without9 any documents, right?10 THE WITNESS: That's true.11 Q You mentioned the nature, frequency and amount of the12 loan as a fact.13 Explain what you mean by that.14 A Generally loans are not made to pay everyday15 expenses.16 Usually you get loans which might be in a lump17 sum, and generally in that stipulation there are terms in18 which it has to be paid.19 If it is paid out on what seems to be a daily,20 weekly basis, it just have more characteristic of not a21 loan than a loan.22 Q You mentioned repayment history as another factor.23 What do you mean by that?24 A Well, that goes hand in hand with the length of time25 that the loan has been outstanding, if a loan is made and

1 then a week later it is repaid, then there is no problem.2 If a loan is made and you go four years later and3 there has been one repayment or no repayments, it would4 tend to show that it wasn't really a loan.5 Q Now, do the factors that the IRS relies upon in this6 context, include the evaluation of the motive of the7 taxpayer?8 A Yes. You look at all factors that are available to9 you.10 Q Tell me what you mean by the motive of the taxpayer.11 A You would want to know why they would take it as a12 loan and not for instance, a salary.13 Q How would that impact as to whether or not you would14 consider compensation a loan or income, if you can give us15 an example?16 A Someone might want, because they owe a lot of money17 to other people, and if their repayment of those debts is18 based on what their income is, they might want to show it19 as a loan and not income.20 Q Now, if a taxpayer has made any statements indicating21 that the money received is not a loan but is income, is22 that a factor?23 A Can you repeat that, please?24 Q If a taxpayer has made statements that certain monies25 are not a loan, but income, would that be a factor?

1 A Absolutely.2 Well, it shows what the party really intended it3 to be. If they say income and not a loan, it is in
come.4 MR. TRABULUS: Objection.5 THE COURT: You are objecting to that?6 MR. TRABULUS: Yes, move to strike.7 THE COURT: No. Motion denied.8 By statements you mean written or oral9 statements, saying I know it is not a loan, it is income;10 is that right?11 THE WITNESS: Yes.12 THE COURT: You have that, and that you can13 consider, too, by the borrower?14 THE WITNESS: Yes.15 THE COURT: All right.16 On the other hand, if there are no such17 statements, that indicates more likely that it is a loan,18 correct?19 THE WITNESS: That would be true.20 Q Now, have you prepared an analysis of Mr. Gordon's21 income for the years 1991 through 1994?22 A Yes.23 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, let me show you24 Government's Exhibit 1404; do you recognize that?25 A Yes.

1 Q What is it?2 A A schedule I have prepared for Mr. Gordon's3 additional taxable income for the years 1991 through4 1994.5 MR. TRABULUS: Objection.6 MR. WHITE: The government offers 1404.7 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor, we8 addressed this earlier.9 THE COURT: We did?10 MR. TRABULUS: Yes.11 May we approach?12 THE COURT: Yes.1314 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes15 place in open court.)16 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, I would hope that it17 is just that Mr. White has forgotten, but this is the very18 first document we talked about today. This is the19 document we took out the words "additional taxable20 income." And here we have it --21 MR. WHITE: I thought --22 MR. TRABULUS: It was changed to 1404-C to look2
3 at it and not to bring it to the jury's attention.24 MR. WHITE: I thought we just said if that would25 be income here is what it would be. And these numbers

1 would correspond to a chart comparing it to the tax2 returns. We have to be able to do that otherwise we can't3 present our theory.4 THE COURT: What is this supposed to be? I5 thought you were offering a table of what an income was.6 MR. WHITE: This is Mr. Rosenblatt's analysis.7 THE COURT: Is it Mr. Rosenblatt's analysis --8 MR. WHITE: If the loans are income, and if he is9 charged as income with expenditures of the penthouse and10 condominium, this would be what his income would be.11 THE COURT: I don't think we discussed that.12 MR. TRABULUS: This particular document was13 brought to
your Honor, it was called 1404-A, it is the14 very first document we talk about today. When I first15 raised the objection and we first came up and raised the16 objection of legal conclusions, it was the document17 presented to you. This is the document -- that's the18 document 1404-C, so the jury would not realize he was19 being questioned about the additional income chart that20 was prepared.21 MR. WHITE: He is not going to give his22 conclusion as a legal matter. But he has to be able to23 explain if these matters were income, here are the24 numbers.25 THE COURT: How can't he say something like

5 THE COURT: One minute.6 Which count is that? 61?7 MR. WHITE: I believe 60 is the conspiracy, and8 61 is tax evasion.9 THE COURT: In this case those two counts, the10 government charges that he concealed income during those11 years by calling them loans and not paying taxes on them.12 It is very simple.13 All they are doing here is showing if this is14 income, this is what would be. How can I prevent the15 government from showing that?16 MR. TRABULUS: Well, it is more than loans.17 First of all, this document includes the purchase price of18 a condominium. If he wants to talk about the loans,19 that's up here, and they can indicate it is the loan.20 THE COURT: This is the first part here, the top21 part -- what is the number of this exhibit?22 MR. WHITE: It is 1404, your Honor.23 THE COURT: All right.24 Go ahead.
That's the alleged taxable income25 called loans, right?

1 MR. WHITE: Correct.2 MR. WALLENSTEIN: It was pointed out this3 morning, that the $942,000 item in 1993 for the purchase4 of the Manhasset condo is monies spent for the purchase of5 real property, an asset which that corporation still6 owns.7 So, at the very least all that could be8 attributable to Mr. Gordon there is the rental and not the9 asset.10 MR. WHITE: That's your theory. The government's11 theory is PVI was a shell corporation. It did no12 business. Mr. Gordon controlled it. And the fact that he13 used a corporate shell to buy a personal residence means14 nothing.15 And also, Mr. Chase who was here yesterday who16 paid rent, paid rent to PVI. We have the check stubs in17 evidence to show that the rent money went from PVI right18 into Mr. Gordon's pockets. So after Mr. Gordon moves out,19 it shows he is collecting the money personally. It shows20 he has all the incidents of ownership in the condominium21 and is collecting the rents.22 MR. TRABULUS: He doesn't have title to it.23 MR. WHITE: That doesn't mean anything.24 THE COURT: You are putting in here the purchase25 price of the condominium or the amount spent?

1 MR. WHITE: The purchase price.2 The government's theory is Publishing Ventures3 bought and furnished to Mr. Gordon a house.4 MR. TRABULUS: This is the same government which5 is seeking to present the theory that he doesn't own it,6 and it is PVI's -- I have to put it this way, the

7 government at the same time is maintaining a civil action8 against among others Mr. Gordon. In that civil action the9 government maintains that there is no question that this10 house, this condominium, belongs to PVI, and there is11 further no question that PVI is going to have to give it12 over, because either it is going to go to the trustee in13 bankruptcy, its settlement for the trustee in bankruptcy,14 or to the government in a forfeiture.15 They are speaking out of two sides of their16 mouth. In a civil case they are saying one thing, and17 here they are saying it is his house.18 MR. WHITE: They are quarreling with the19 government's legal theory. They can cross-examine the20 witness if they wish.21 MR. TRABULUS: There is something here known as22 estoppel.23 THE COURT: I have a problem with the government24 charging the full amount of this property and saying it is25 income to Mr. Gordon.

1 I have less of a problem of the monies that were2 actually paid, the theory of the government being that it3 is taxable income to Mr. Gordon. After all, PVI still has4 title to this property. What is going to happen to that5 we don't know yet.6 MR. TRABULUS: Your Honor, without backtracking7 the position I took earlier where I made the objection8 which is continuing. It seems to me consistent with your9 Honor's ruling he should be allowed to say the total10 amount of loans which the IRS -- the total -- I mean all11 he can say is the total amount of loans.12 THE COURT: The monies paid out.13 MR. TRABULUS: The total amount is the amount.14 And then it is up to the government to argue to the jury15 under the law you instructed that it constitutes income.16 THE COURT: The government's theory is that the17 monies paid out to maintain and improve the condominium is18 all income to Mr. Gordon. And I think they should have a19 right to show that. But not the purchase price of the20 property. That was not paid out.21 MR. TRABULUS: And The improvements, your22 Honor, capital expenditures. They put in a new bathroom23 or a shower.24 MR. WHITE: That's your theory. Argue it to the25 jury and cross-examine Rosenblatt about it.

1 MR. TRABULUS: Not just my theory. It is the2 same government --3 MR. WHITE: The government is not saying that.4 They have a criminal forfeiture count in this5 indictment --6 THE COURT: I will recess the jury. We have to7 let him go in any event.8 By the way, when is he coming back?9 MR. WHITE: Tomorrow afternoon, your Honor when10 we start.11 THE COURT: All right.1213 (Whereupon, at this time the following takes14 place in open court.)15 THE COURT: Members of the jury, it is going to16 take a little while. We might as well have a recess.17 Please do not discuss the case. And keep an open mind.18 (Whereupon, at this time the jury leaves the19 courtroom.)20 THE COURT: Mr. Rosenblatt, you can be excused.21 You will be back tomorrow afternoon by 1:30.22 THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.23 (Whereupon, at this time the witness left the24 witness stand.)25 MR. WHITE: Your Honor was asking me the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20701 government's theory. And the theory on the condominium2 part is that if a corporation said to an employee, here,3 we are giving you a condominium. It is yours. You live4 there. We will pay for it. You do what you want with it,5 it is yours that would clearly be income if they gave6 someone a house, the entire value of the house, including7 what they paid for it.8 The government's theory is that this is no9 different. The difference is rather than giving to it10 Mr. Gordon in his name, they used a subterfuge of11 establishing a corporation that only existed on paper, did12 no business whatsoever. The only business was to hold13 this condominium and be a conduit for funds from Who's Who14 Worldwide to purchase, furnish, maintain this condominium.15 They may disagree with the theory, but it is16 certainly not something that the jury should be barred17 from hearing.18 THE COURT: Your theory is that the entire price19 of the condominium should be charged as income although20 whoever bought it -- was it PVI?21 MR. WHITE: Yes.22 THE COURT: Only paid so much down on it and owns23 the rest?24 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, during the course of the25 intervening years the mortgage was paid off, Publishing

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20711 Ventures owns the property free and clear.2 THE COURT: So there is no more mortgage?3 MR. WHITE: Correct.4 One of the reasons, your Honor, that bolsters5 that is Mr. Gordon is exercising what we call the6 incidences of ownership. Namely, once he moves out of the7 so-called corporate property, and tenants move in, namely,8 Mr. Chase, who testified here yesterday, Mr. Chase fills9 out his rent check in name to Publishing Ventures. But10 when you look at the Publishing Ventures check stub which11 go right through 1997, and Mr. Chase's checks go in. It12 says on the stub, S Chase rent to B G. It goes right out13 the door to Mr. Gordon's pocket.14 When Mr. Gordon was arraigned on this indictment15 in November of 1997, he had to fill out a financial16 affidavit to get court appointed counsel. He included17 that rental income as his income on that form. So he is18 exercising the incidences of ownership, although it is19 held in PVI's name. He lived there. When he moved out,20 he gets the payments from the tenant.21 THE COURT: It is the government's contention22 that the property was purchased for him?23 MR. WHITE: Yes.24 THE COURT: As additional income?25 MR. WHITE: Yes.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 2072

1 THE COURT: Taxable income?2 MR. WHITE: Yes.3 MR. TRABULUS: I don't know how the government4 with a straight face, without conceding anything, that the5 they showed the income he received shows the value of the6 income from the property during the time he used it, or7 going forward if you include the rental payments that8 Mr. Chase is paying, which would also constitute the value9 of the income of the property, and you have to give10 credits against what rent he paid. We have testimony he11 paid represent. We don't know if there is any difference12 between the fair market value of the property and the rent13 he paid. But to say he was actually giis when there14 is no indication under the law of any state, he would be15 able to assert against any judgment creditor or tax16 creditor of PVI, that no, you can't reach this asset. It17 is mine.18 It is nonsense, Judge, complete nonsense. PVI19 has title. There is a proceeding in the bankruptcy court,20 an adversary proceeding where the trustee basically got a21 default judgment against PVI for the property.22 The government maintains in civil litigation23 before your Honor, and Mr. Government will be here24 tomorrow on it, that the only question in this is whether25 the bankruptcy trustee's claim to this under his

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20731 settlement with PVI, not Mr. Gordon, takes precedence over2 its claim as to the forfeiture.3 It is saying meanwhile while we sort out who owns4 it, the assets should be held in escrow, and Mr. Gordon5 should continue to get a portion of the rental, and that6 portion, by the way, after expenses, which apparently are7 paid, a portion of the rental which he is an officer of8 PVI and might be regarded as salary to him.
9 Leaving that aside, they are claiming it is his10 property, it is his, given to him. He has the usage and11 ownership of it.12 In other litigation they are taking the13 opposites. There is a principle known as judicial14 estoppel. They can't have it both ways. They can't say15 out of the criminal side of their mouth that this is16 Mr. Gordon's property, he owns it, he should have paid17 taxes on it, and out of the civil side of their mouth,18 say, hey, it is just a question of who is entitled to get19 it from PVI, which is the owner of it.20 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, it is not what the21 government is saying in the civil case as I understand22 it. The government is saying there that the government23 has a lien on it because there is a forfeiture count on24 this indictment.
25 All we are saying is the income stream from the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20741 current tenant should be held by the Court at a minimum,2 because the government, that's the proceeds from this3 criminal activity. If the condominium itself is4 forfeitable property, so is the income stream coming from5 it.6 With respect to what Mr. Trabulus said before7 about ownership, the government in Mr. Rosenblatt's8 calculations was going to credit Mr. Gordon for the rent9 that he paid, give him various deductions for mortgage10 interest payments and everything else. We were going to11 do those calculations. Some was calculated as income, and12 he would get certain attendant deductions.13 If they want to dispute our theory, fine. They14 must direct it to the jury in summation. They can't bar15 us now because they disagree with our legal theory.16 THE COURT: It is more than that, Mr. White.17 They say it would be improper as a matter of law to18 present to the jury this condominium as an asset of19 Mr. Gordon when it went to PVI, and he used it. They say20 that, therefore, to charge this asset as a matter of law21 it could not be taxable income.22 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I disagree. I feel there23 is certainly enough here -- first of all, it is codified24 in the tax code that transactions have to be analyzed for25 their substance and not their form. And here I feel there

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20751 is certainly enough evidence from which the jury could2 conclude that this was essentially a gift to Mr. Gordon.3 Because he controlled both the companies, PVI just existed4 on paper and all the reasons
I mentioned before. Again,5 once he moves out, he is collecting the rent.6 THE COURT: Do you have any authority as to7 that? What you are doing is almost like piercing the8 corporate veil here. Do you have any authority as to9 other cases that held that giving pieces of property to a10 corporation controlled by the taxpayer would be taxable11 income to the taxpayer?12 MR. WHITE: Something that specific, the answer13 is no, your Honor.14 THE COURT: That's what we are talking about15 though. I can't believe this has not occurred before.16 MR. WHITE: It may have in tax court decisions17 and what not. It did not occur to me that --18 THE COURT: Well, between now and 1:30 tomorrow I19 am going to have to decide whether to do it. Any help I20 can get on the law I would appreciate.21 MR. WHITE: I will be hitting the books tonight,22 your Honor.23 If I can clarify what we are arguing about, so it24 is clear --25 THE COURT: I haven't got a copy of that

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20761 document.2 MR. WHITE: The loan issue I believe is settled.3 The condominium issue is open.4 THE COURT: When you say the loan issue, you mean5 the personal expenses paid, and the alleged loans to Bruce6 Gordon by the corporations?7 MR. WHITE: Correct, the top half of this case.8 THE COURT: We are now talking about the condo in9 Manhasset?10 MR. WHITE: If you skip the condominium, the next11 is Manhattan penthouse Sterling Who's Who. There he is12 being charged with income as the rent that Sterling paid13 for the penthouse. That's the theory that Mr. Wallenstein14 is saying we should apply to the condominium, too. So I15 am assuming there is no argument about that, namely that16 Sterling provide 8,000 a month to the --17 THE COURT: I assume they will not object to18 that -- I mean your objection to you claiming it.19 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I don't agree that it is20 income. But I think it is admissible.21 MR. WHITE: They don't object to my inclusion of22 this on the chart.23 THE COURT: We are talking now about the24 condominium in Manhasset. And that's a big chunk.25 MR. WHITE: Correct.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20771 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Half his number.2 MR. WHITE: If we can't impute the entire amount,3 we certainly can establish some sort of --4 THE COURT: Reasonable use.5 MR. WHITE: Correct.6 THE COURT: Which is what the defendants have7 said.8 MR. TRABULUS: That's the most they could argue.

9 THE COURT: I don't know whether that is so. But10 we have this corporation to overcome. It is a11 corporate -- the gift or the money was paid for by a12 corporation. Now you have shown that monies come from13 Who's Who Worldwide Registry into this corporation,14 Publishing Ventures. But I am not convinced that you can15 assess the entire value of this condominium to the16 individual who isn't living there and who controls the17 corporation, a different corporation.18 MR. WHITE: I understand that, your Honor. I19 guess what I don't understand -- and I don't have cases to20 cite to your Honor, but it doesn't seem to me -- it seems21 to me that their argument goes to the weight of this. It22 is not -- the government's theory is not so far out that23 as a matter of law it is preposterous.24 THE COURT: I don't know, I don't know. I am not25 sure about it, and I am certainly not an expert on the

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20781 subject. And that why I say I will have to do some2 research. And whatever help you can afford, all sides, I3 would appreciate it.4 MR. WHITE: Okay.5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: It doesn't have to be6 preposterous for you to preclude them. It could be7 somewhat less and still admissible.8 THE COURT: Of course.9 THE COURT: We will take a brief recess and we10 will get back.11 You will have another witness, I assume.1213 (Whereupon, a recess is taken.)1415 (In the absence of the jury.)16 THE COURT: Mr. White, in the event I only permit17 the reasonable rental value to Mr. Gordon on the use of18 the condominium, and I may very well restrict it to that,19 you better prepare a new sheet.

20 MR. WHITE: It is not the only chart that will21 have to be reworked.22 THE COURT: I am giving you advance notice. I23 have not made a decision yet, but I may prohibit you from24 bringing that to the jury's attention.25 MR. WHITE: Okay.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20791 MR. WALLENSTEIN: The numbers are already there2 by virtue of all the charts there, the numbers I don't3 know. But all the float charts have all those numbers on4 it already.5 THE COURT: Yes.6 MR. WALLENSTEIN: The numbers are before the7 jury. The charts are in evidence.8 THE COURT: What is your point? You don't need9 this, you mean?10 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I feel we need to rework it,11 but we need a limited instruction to use the numbers on12 the money laundering count, I presume.13 THE COURT: The jury --
no, I am not sure. I14 don't think we need a limiting instruction, if you feel we15 do, type one out and give it to me. How could this jury16 not be somewhat confused about this? They have to be.17 MR. WALLENSTEIN: The rest of us are.18 THE COURT: If we are having trouble, they are19 having more trouble, I believe. You can give them a20 limiting instruction which may only confuse them more,21 which is what you might want.22 MR. WALLENSTEIN: What we get paid for.23 THE CLERK: Jury entering.24 (Whereupon, the jury at this time entered the25 courtroom.)

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20801 THE COURT: Please be seated, members of the2 jury.3 I must apologize for keeping you waiting beyond4 the ten minutes. I say ten minutes, and most of the time5 it is longer than that. I do not do it
-- have a seat,6 ma'am.7 I do not do it intentionally. There are issues,8 some of them complex that we have to discuss. When you9 discuss issues, sometimes you have to deliberate a bit,10 look up law from time to time, and that's why you are kept11 waiting occasionally.12 I do not like to keep you waiting, especially in13 a small room like this. When the jury rooms were given14 out, they decided since I got the biggest courtroom, I15 will get the smallest jury room. That's the quid pro16 quo. But when we move to Central Islip, which I hope you17 all join us in three or four years, we will have plenty of18 room.19 You may proceed.20 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, we have a new witness.21 THE COURT: All right.22 By the way, we are interrupting the testimony of23 Mr. Rosenblatt. We will resume that tomorrow at 1:30.24 You can take a
deep breath between now and 1:30 tomorrow.25 THE CLERK: Will the witness please rise and

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 20811 raise your right hand.23 T R A C E Y C O L L E T T I,4 called as a witness, having been first5 duly sworn, was examined and testified6 as follows:78 THE CLERK: Please state your name and spell your9 last name slowly for the record.10 THE WITNESS: Tracey Colletti, C O L L E T T I.11 THE COURT: Have a seat, Ms. Colletti.1213 DIRECT EXAMINATION14 BY MS. SCOTT:15 Q Good afternoon, Ms. Colletti.16 A Hi.17 Q Can you tell us where you live.18 A Queens.19 THE COURT: Hold it one minute, please,20 Ms. Scott.21 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the22 proceedings.)23 THE COURT: The jurors
asked my courtroom deputy24 who the man was sitting next to Mr. Trabulus. Very25 observant.

1 Would you like to introduce -- where is the2 gentleman?3 MR. TRABULUS: He left, Mr. Rosenblatt isn't4 here.5 THE COURT: Would you explain to the jury,6 Mr. Trabulus. We talked about it and we decided it wasn't7 necessary, but you are ahead of us as usual.8 MR. TRABULUS: As an attorney specializing in tax9 matters and he is here to assist me.10 JUROR NO. 5: What is his name?11 MR. TRABULUS: May I?12 THE COURT: Sure.13 MR. TRABULUS: His name is Jeffrey O'Connor.14 THE COURT: Very well. You may proceed.15 Q Ms. Colletti, what do you do for a living?16 A Public relations work.17 Q Have you ever worked at a company called Who's Who18 Worldwide Registry?19 A Yes.20 Q When did you begin working there?21 A Middle of January, 1994.22 Q How long did you work there for?23 A Until late December of the same year.24 Q Now, while you were there, where were you located?25 Where were you physically working?

1 A In Lake Success.2 Q What position did you have?3 A My title was senior editor of Tribute Magazine.4 Q What were your responsibilities as senior editor?5 A Developing the magazine from the beginning to the6 end, writing the articles, interviewing members, doing7 layout, going to -- on press when it was being printed,8 pretty much from the beginning to the end.9 Q Now, while you were at Who's Who Worldwide who was in10 charge of the company?11 A Bruce Gordon.12 Q And how did you discover that -- withdrawn.13 Who owned the company while you were there?14 A I guess I just assumed it was Bruce Gordon.15 Q Where did you get that information?16 A He was pretty much the top person there when I was17 there at the time.18 Q And to your knowledge where did Mr. Gordon live while19 you were at Who's Who Worldwide?20 A I believe I had heard that he lived in Manhasset.21 Q What kind of residence did he have there to your22 knowledge?23 A I heard someone say it was a townhouse.24 Q Have you ever visited Mr. Gordon's residence in25 Manhasset?

5 Q I would ask you to look at the third page of that6 document. The top there has 2 Hummingbird Road; is that7 correct?8 A Yes.9 Q And take a look at the entry for August 9th, 1994,10 would you read that aloud?11 A Date, 8/9, guest Suzanne Konopka and then my name,12 Tracey Colletti is under it, and then it says occasion,13 discuss public relations, who consistently outproduce those around them - thanks to shortcuts. Events.14 Q Now, did you ever attend such a meeting at the15 residence in Manhasset?16 A No.17 Q Take a look at the entry on page two of that same18 exhibit, the page following, which really should be page 419 of the exhibit.20 A Okay.21 Q The entry for September 12th, 1994, can you read that22 aloud for the jury, please.23 A The date is 9/12/94, guests name, Debra B, Suzanne K24 and Tracey Colletti. Occasion, planning reception,25 Russian members.

1 Q Did you ever attend such a meeting on September 12th?2 A No, I did not.3 Q Did you have any involvement with Russian members at4 that time?5 A I believe they came to our offices once for a6 meeting.7 Q Now, turning to the next page of that document, the8 entry for September 19th, 1994, would you please read that9 aloud to the jury?10 A 9/9/94, guest, Suzanne K, Tracey Colletti, Debra11 Benjamin. Occasion, review members.12 Q And did you ever attempt such a meeting on September13 19th at the condominium?14 A No, I did not.15 Q And what if any involvement did you have with16 memberships at the company?17 A I would select members to interview for profiles in18 the magazine, and deal with them on the phone.19 Occasionally a member may call to have a press20 release written for him or herself for the local paper or21 for a resume attachment. And that was it.22 Q Now, what other residences did Mr. Gordon maintain23 while you were at Who's Who Worldwide?24 A I believe there was a penthouse in Manhattan.25 Q And what was your understanding as to what Mr. Gordon

1 used that penthouse for?2 A I was never -- it was never told to us. I assumed it3 was another apartment, a location in the city.4 Q Did you ever visit that location?5 A Once.6 Q And when did you visit it?7 A I believe it was in the middle of August of 1994.8 Q And what was your visit for?9 A It was described as a cocktail party.10 Q Were there other employees present at that event?11 A Yes.
12 Q Were any members of the company present there?13 A No.14 Q Now, before you went to this party, what were you15 told was the purpose of the party?16 A Just a gathering of the employees, maybe to kind of17 see his new penthouse, I guess.18 Q And before that time what had Mr. Gordon said to you19 and the other employees about socializing with each other?20 A It wasn't looked highly upon. We were all there to21 do a job and not socialize. So we really weren't22 encouraged to socialize during the workday.23 Q On this summer night in 1994, who was present at this24 gathering?25 A Do you want the names?

1 Q Indicate which departments they were from?2 A The Tribute Magazine, there were four of us on staff3 who worked on the magazine, as well as some salespeople.4 Q Now, turning back to Government's Exhibit 641, if you5 could turn to the page, the first page listing entry for6 250 East 54th, and take a look at the entry for September7 9th, 1994.8 Can you read that aloud for the jury, please.9 A September 9th?10 Q 6th, 1994.11 A 9/6/94, guest, Tracey Colletti, Suzanne and Debra12 Benjamin. Occasion, review mailings and analyze.13 Q Did you attend such a meeting on September 6th, 1994?14 A No.15 Q Did your job involve working with the mailings?16 A I think once we were asked to go to one of the17 mailing houses out on Long Island to oversee a mailing,18 that a mailing went smoothly.19 Q Now, aside from the cocktail party you told us about20 did you ever attend any other business type meetings at21 this penthouse in Manhattan?22 A No.23 MS. SCOTT: I have no further questions. Thank24 you.25 THE COURT: Cross-examination.

1 MR. TRABULUS: Thank you, your Honor.23 CROSS-EXAMINATION4 BY MR. TRABULUS:5 Q Good afternoon, Mrs. Colletti, I am Norman Trabulus,6 and I am Mr. Gordon's lawyer.7 Just a couple of questions to begin.8 When you worked at Who's Who Worldwide did you9 work at the Lake Success location?10 A Yes.11 Q Was there ever any period of time when you worked at12 the Sterling offices on 59th Street in Manhattan?13 A I would occasionally go there for a meeting or to14 discuss the magazine.15 Q But that was not your regular place where you worked?16 A No.17 Q You mentioned that there was one occasion when18 Russian members came to the offices for a meeting; is that19 right?20 A Yes.21 Q That was on Long Island; is that right?22 A No. I believe it was the Manhattan office.23 Q And would you be aware as to whether there were other24 meetings that the Russians attended in Manhattan that you25 may not have been invited to?

1 A It's possible.2 Q With regard to the cocktail party that you went to at3 the penthouse, was that the only time you were at the4 penthouse?5 A Yes.6 Q I think you said it was a guess to see the apartment,7 is that what you were told?8 A We were never told. It was Saturday night, you are9 invited to the penthouse.10 Q Okay.11 You mentioned that you had been told that12 socializing was not encouraged during business
hours. And13 I want to ask, was that something told to you at the14 penthouse or something told to you other times?15 A No, at the Lake Success office, not at the penthouse.16 Q All right, that makes sense, all right.17 Now, when you worked for Who's Who Worldwide can18 you tell us the general types of things that you did.19 A Basically the main focus of my work was on the20 Tribute Magazine, again, developing the magazine, having21 meetings to decide who we would profile, which members we22 thought were worthy of being profiled in the magazine, and23 the process of getting in touch with them, which could24 take weeks, to set up an interview; actually interviewing25 them; writing the profile, the feature on them; having it

1 approved; finalizing the copy,
and sending it to a layout2 person who would then design the magazine for us,
3 proofread the magazine and sending it to the printer.4 Q Did you work with Suzanne Konopka?5 A Yes.6 Q Can you tell us some of the members you recall7 interviewing for being profiled. If you need a magazine,8 I can show you.9 A Linda Sweeney, a vice president at HBO, Home Box10 Office.11 I don't recall her name, but she was one of the12 founders of Lowe's theaters, L O W E S.13 Another woman from the Foundation of Legal14 Blindness. I don't recall their names, just the15 organization.16 Mario Argenti, A R G E N T I, president of WELLA,17 W E L L A.18 Q And was this just some of the ones you interviewed?19 A These were the ones that I had an interest in the20 interviewing -- that I conducted the interview and wrote21 the article.

22 Q Were there others besides the ones you just23 mentioned?24 A That I wrote?25 Q Yes.

1 A Oh, sure.2 Q Do you recall approximately how many there were?3 A I believe we had 12 to 15 profiles per issue. I did4 about four or five for each issue, per issue.5 Q Did you have occasion to speak to members who were6 not being profiled in Who's Who -- excuse me, in Tribute?7 A Occasionally.8 Q What would be the circumstances of that?9 A The calls would be forwarded to my line. Maybe they10 wanted to have a press release written about them. It was11 a basic introduction release, saying their name, the12 company they were with have been inducted into Who's Who13 Worldwide. Some of them wanted it for local newspapers or14 their resume or portfolio, I guess.15 MR. TRABULUS: Just bear with me a minute.16 THE COURT: Yes.17 (Whereupon, at this time there was a pause in the18 proceedings.)19 Q Did you ever have occasion to speak to members who20 would call up hoping to be profiled in Tribute or21 spotlighted in Tribute?22 A We would get feedback on the magazine, some members23 would call requesting additional issues.24 No members had ever called me requesting to be25 profiled.

1 Q Did you ever get correspondence from members you2 would recall asking to be included in Tribute or3 suggesting they could be?4 A No. But I received some letters of people I profiled5 thanking me or thanking the magazine for their profile.6 But no one requested being profiled.

7 Q Is it fair to say that the members you spoke to were8 pleased?9 A The members I interviewed?10 Q In general, the members you spoke to, if you have to11 separate the ones you interviewed from the ones who may12 have called you on other occasions.13 A The people I interviewed were quite pleased. The14 press releases weren't many, but they were pleased.15 MR. TRABULUS: No further questions.16 THE COURT: Anything else?17 MR. SCHOER: I have a few questions, Judge.1819 CROSS-EXAMINATION20 BY MR. SCHOER:21 Q Good afternoon, Ms. Colletti.22 A Hello.23 Q You indicated on direct examination that there were24 some Russian members who came to the office for a meeting?25 A Yes.

1 Q Do you remember when that occurred?2 A I would have to guess it was sometime in the summer.3 I think it was warm weather. It wasn't cold, that's the4 best I could do.5 Q That's in the Lake Success office?6 A No, that was in Manhattan.7 Q You also indicated on direct examination that after8 you would prepare the profiles you submitted them for9 approval?10 A Yes.11 Q Who did you submit them for approval to?12 A Margaret Swendseid.13 Q Do you know whether she submitted them for approval14 to anyone else?15 A She may have shared them I think with Debra Benjamin.16 Q Those were people who were above you in the hierarchy17 of the Tribute Magazine?18 A Yes, Margaret was the managing editor. And Debra19 just oversaw the magazine.20 Q Now, those press releases that you prepared, were21 those very simple type press releases?22 A Very simple.
It was all pretty much written23 already. All we had to do was to insert their name and24 company and their location in the country.25 Q Did you charge for that, do you know? Or was that

1 part of the membership?2 A I didn't charge for it. I just did it.3 Q You didn't prepare any sort of an invoice for the4 administration department to charge for something like5 that, did you?6 A No.7 Q I will show you what is marked in evidence as8 Defendant's Exhibit I.9 Is that the kind of press release you would fill10 in and then send out to the members?11 (Handed to the witness.)12 A Yes, uh-huh.13 Q Thank you.14 Now, in addition to interviewing the members in15 the Tribute Magazine, there were letters from members.16
Did you have anything to do with receiving or17 reviewing those members for entry into the publication?18 A The letters didn't come to me.19 Q Did you review them at any time before the20 publication was actually sent to members?21 A Sure. We would proofread them once they were input22 by our designer.23 Q And those letters indicated generally that members24 were happy with the product, with their membership; isn't25 that so?

1 A The letters we published in Tribute, yes.2 Q And those letters indicate that the people at least3 who wrote those letters at least received some value for4 being members of Who's Who Worldwide; isn't that so?5 A The letters would thank us for the magazine. That6 was really what they were -- what they were about.

7 Q And they would also say I have been to, I have been8 able to network as being a, as a result of being a member,9 or as a result of preparing my profile in the Tribute10 Magazine; is that correct?11 A I don't remember what the letters said exactly, but12 it was probably along those lines.13 Q Okay.14 Now, you indicated that Bruce Gordon was in15 charge; is that right?16 A Right.17 Q And --18 A At least of me.19 Q Okay.20 And as far as you, you were there on a daily21 basis at Lake Success; is that right?22 A Yes.23 Q He was in charge of everyone, wasn't he?24 A Sure.25 Q He was -- would you say he was a real hands on CEO?

1 A He was visible there.2 Q And he was the decision-maker, isn't that so?3 A Any decisions that involved my job there, he would4 make the ultimate decision, sure.5 Q And he had to approve even some very little minute6 details of your job and other people in your department,7 it was a requirement that Bruce Gordon approve what was8 being done; is that so?9 A I would have direct dealings with Debra Benjamin, who10 would have more dealings with Bruce directly. But there11 were times when I did have to deal with Bruce.12 Q And based on what you observed at Who's Who13 Worldwide, would you say that the people in the14 administration department had a similar experience with15 Bruce Gordon, that he was the one who ultimately made all16 the decisions?17 A That's what I believed at the time.18 Q And would you say that was true also of the people in19 the sales department?20 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.

21 Foundation.22 THE COURT: Do you know what the people in the23 sales department felt about Mr. Gordon?24 MR. SCHOER: Judge, I didn't really ask what they25 felt.

1 THE COURT: What did you ask?2 MR. SCHOER: I am sorry. I didn't mean to3 interrupt your Honor.4 Q I asked, based on what you observed being there on a5 daily basis, would you say that Mr. Gordon was the one6 that was making the decisions with respect to the sales7 department as he was with respect to your department?8 A Yes.9 Q Is it fair to say that not only did he not10 particularly like people to socialize, but he kept the11 departments departmentalized, you were not supposed to12 know what was going on in administration; is that fair to13 say?14 A I am not saying we weren't really supposed to know.15 We had nice offices there. I had my own office that was16 pretty much in the corner with a door. And my back --17 when I would type my back was to the door because my18 computer was facing that way. So I was kind of in my own19 little world for most of the day.20 Q But were there directions for Mr. Gordon really not21 to have you go into the administration area? Did you ever22 hear a direction like that?23 A There were times when we needed to go there for24 various paperwork.25 The administration area was where the mailing

1 bins were. We needed to go there on occasion. We weren't2 there to socialize.3 Q Okay.4 Did you know the kind of work that Liz Sautter5 was doing?6
A Liz was Bruce's administrative assistant, I assumed.7 Q She was his right-hand man?8 A Sure.9 Q Or right-hand woman?10 A Person.11 Q Person.12 Did you know the kind of work or duties exactly13 she had?14 A No.15 Q Did you know the duties that other people in16 administration had?17 A No.18 Q Do you know -- did you open mail at any time while19 you worked at Who's Who Worldwide?20 A Just anything that was addressed to me.21 Q But you actually opened mail addressed to you, or was22 that mail opened by administration first?23 A Sometimes if it was a package it would be slit open24 to save us, like any other company does, usually opens25 packages for you.

1 Q Do you remember that there was a rule at
Who's Who2 Worldwide that only the people at administration opened3 mail?4 A I didn't know about that, no.5 Q Did you have access to the computers at Who's Who6 Worldwide?7 A Just my own.8 Q Okay.9 Not access to any of the other computer systems10 that were there, right?11 A No. If we needed information on a member, as far as12 their location or their phone number, we would go to13 administration, and they would provide us with that14 information.15 Q You couldn't do that yourself, you had to go to16 someone in administration to do that?17 A Right.18 Q That material was not accessed to you; isn't that19 correct?20 A Right.21 Q So, is it fair to say that each part -- each22 department at Who's Who Worldwide was sort of23 self-contained, and the other departments really weren't24 allowed to go and access the materials in that other25 particular departments?

1 A That would be correct.2 Q Now, did there come a time that a CD-ROM was3 prepared?4 A Yes.5 Q And once you had the CD-ROM, then you had access to6 more membership information; isn't that so?7 A Yes.8 Q And could you use that CD-ROM to focus on that9 particular type of person and try to focus on people in10 particular categories?11 A There was a search option on it. For example if I12 went to interview someone in the entertainment field, I13 would type the word, entertainment or movie or film, and I14 would get a listing of their names and maybe city, state,15 maybe interest in books or career goals, and things like16 that.17 Q And you would use that to determine who to talk to,18 to see if they wanted profiles written about them; is that19 correct?20 A Yes.21 Q And you would think of some interesting business like22 you said, the film industry, and you would get a list of23 people and you would call them to see if they wanted to be24 profiled members; isn't that so?25 A Right.

1 Q So, you used that CD-ROM to contact people, right?2 A To find out who were members, yes.3 Q Contact members?4 A Yes.5 Q You networked with those members based on the uses of6 the CD-ROM; isn't that so?7 A They would provide information for who was a member8 of Who's Who Worldwide.9 Q And you would be able to take that information and10 call them and make contact with them, network with them,11 right?12 A Yes.13 Q Okay.14 Now, did you have any knowledge of Mr. Gordon's15 finances?16 A No.17 Q It wasn't any of your witness, right?18 A No.19 Q The Tribute Magazine in general, the things contained20 in there, you believed them to be true, right?21 A Yes.22 Q And you had no intent to deceive anyone with respect23 to anything in the Tribute Magazine, did you?24 A No.25 Q When you sent it to members, you did that in good

1 faith, right?2 A Right.3 MR. SCHOER: No further questions. Thank you.4 THE COURT: Anybody else?56 CROSS-EXAMINATION7 BY MR. GEDULDIG:8 Q Ms. Colletti, there was a time while you were running9 this magazine for Who's Who
that some information or10 notices appeared in the magazine regarding a seminar or11 conference that Who's Who was planning to run in Hilton12 Head. Do you recall that?13 A Yes.14 Q And that did appear in the magazine; is that right?15 A Yes.16 Q That seminar or conference at Hilton Head never came17 off; is that right?18 A Right.19 Q Can you tell us whether or not the magazine ever20 published a notice to the membership that the conference21 could not be held because of lack of interest or whatever22 reason?23 A I don't recall ever putting anything in the magazine24 like that.25 Q Okay.

1 The salespeople at Who's Who, do you know whether2 or not they received copies of the magazine, the Tribute3 Magazine?
4 A Sure, yes.5 Q And after the Hilton Head was cancelled, did there6 come a time that either you, Ms. Konopka or anyone from7 the magazine sat down with the salespeople to tell them8 the Hilton Head had not been held?9 A I never did that, no.10 Q Do you know if anybody did that?11 A I don't know.12 Q Do you know if there was ever a time, or were there13 times when you would sit down with the salespeople to14 discuss information that you were putting into the15 magazine?16 A No.17 Q Did you ever have meetings with the salespeople to18 ask them for information that they thought should go into19 the magazine?20 A They would come probably of their own, you know, free21 will to me or I guess Suzanne. You know, I just spoke to22 a member. This sounds great. This is what he does. He23 sounds very interesting. You might
want to keep him on24 file to maybe profile him in the future.25 Q Okay.

1 But there was no policy or an ongoing program2 where salespeople would come to you or you would go to3 salespeople; is that right?4 A Nothing standard.5 Q There was also I believe some information run in the6 magazine regarding a seminar or conference to be held in7 either Hong Kong or Vietnam. Do you recall that at all?8 A No.9 Q Did you ever hear about a conference or a seminar to10 be run in Hong Kong and/or Vietnam?11 A No. We had done business profiles of those12 countries, how business is run there. But nothing about a13 seminar.14 Q Okay.15 So, I would be correct in saying that there never16 was an occasion where you explained, for instance, to17 salespeople that there was not going to be a seminar or18 conference in Hong Kong or Vietnam?19 A No.20 Q Now, you testified several times I think that21 Mr. Gordon was a so-called, hands-on CEO; is that right?22 A Yes.23 Q And could you ever hear Mr. Gordon talking to the24 salespeople?25 A Sure.

1 Q Would it be fair to say that Mr. Gordon had a temper?2 A There would be days, sure.3 Q When you heard him talking to the salespeople, was it4 because he was talking very loudly? Did you hear him5 yelling at salespeople on occasion?6 A I would say yes.7 Q And that was while you were in your office?8 A Yes.9 Q Even if you were typing at your machine?10 A Right.11 Q Even with the door closed?12 A Sometimes.13 Q So, would I be correct in saying or characterizing14 Mr. Gordon as an intimidating person?15 A I was never intimidated by him. But I understand how16 people could be.17 Q And you would want to follow instructions that he18 gave you to the letter; is that fair to say?19 A Yes.20 MR. GEDULDIG: I have no other questions.21 Judge, there is a book here and I will take a22 flying leap over it.232425

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION2 BY MR. DUNN:3 Q Good afternoon, Ms. Colletti, my name is Thomas4 Dunn.5 A Good afternoon.6 Q You mentioned at a time that salespeople would come7 in and recommend certain people to be included in Tribute;8 is that correct?9 A Yes.

10 Q And do you have knowledge if a salesperson would11 receive any benefit for that?12 A I didn't -- no, I wouldn't think so.13 Q The only benefits they would receive was through the14 sales, correct?15 A To my knowledge.16 Q And if they came in with someone's name recommending17 them for the Tribute, the sale would have been already18 completed at that point, as far as you know?19 A As far as I know.20 Q And do you recall -- do you have any independent21 recollection as you sit there now, how many different22 salespeople would come in on occasion recommending people?23 A I would say three or four, pretty much consistent the24 same three or four.25 Q And as you sit there now, do you have any independent

1 recollection as to who those three or four people are?2 A Yes.3 Q Who were they?4 A Annette Haley, Laura Winters and Scott Michaelson.5 Q And do you have any independent recollection of6 anyone else coming in?7 A It is so hard to say. Maybe one or two here or there8 in the course of a day, it's possible.9 Q But as you sit there now you just don't remember?10 A I don't remember. I couldn't tell you for sure.11 MR. DUNN: No further questions.1213 CROSS-EXAMINATION14 BY MR. LEE:15 Q Good afternoon.16 A Hi.17 Q My name is Winston Lee. I represent Laura Weitz, do18 you know her as Laura Winters?19 A Yes.20 Q And how did these people appear to you, these people21 who came in and recommended certain members that they knew22 to the magazine, how did they interest you?23 A Well, I found the ones who recommended people were

24 the ones sitting right outside my door. They were25 probably more apt to come in since they were a couple of

1 feet away to walk in to let me know who they got off the2 phone in to walk in. They would knock on the door with3 the sheet in hand who they just got off the phone with and4 made a copy of the information for me.5 Q Now, in your mind, these people were not motivated6 from all appearances by a design or procedure for7 additional compensation for recommending members that they8 were impressed with? In your mind what appeared to be the9 motivation for them taking it upon themselves to come and10 recommend certain people that they felt strongly about?11 What did you think was their motivation?12 A At the time I thought it was just to the make my job13
a little easier.14 Q What about on their part? Was it just to help -- you15 mean to help you find good --16 A For the magazine.17 Q -- to make your job to find good members to present18 to the other members of the registry? Is that what you19 are saying?20 A Correct.21 Q And thereby increase the value or the worth of that22 magazine to all the members who would be reading it?23 A Yes.24 Q Is that fair to say?25 A Yes.

1 MR. LEE: Thank you.23 CROSS-EXAMINATION4 BY MR. NEVILLE:5 Q Hi. I am Jim Neville representing Scott Michaelson,6 you know Scott?7 A Yes.8 Q You said Scott was one of the salespeople who would9 come and suggest possible interviewees for you in the10 Tribute Magazine?11 A Yes, he wouldn't sit far from my office and would12 come in on occasion with a couple of members.13 Q He was a good salesman, wasn't he?14 A I suppose.15 Q Friendly guy?16 A Sure.17 Q It seems the impression you gave is that you were18 also quite approachable and friendly. Did you enjoy your19 job at Tribute?20 A I enjoyed it. It was interesting. I learned a lot
21 about writing.22 Q The people you worked with, did you enjoy working23 with, your co-workers?24 A Sure.25 Q You were proud of the magazine you were helping to

1 put out?2 A It was my first job out of college basically. And it3 was a great start to build a portfolio and start my4 career.5 Q I bet you put your experience at Who's
Who on your6 resume now, don't you?7 A Yes.8 Q Scott Michaelson and others, you said Annette Haley9 and other salespeople came to you because they were eager10 to share with you something that they thought would be11 good for the magazine, right?12 A Right.13 Q And they did that because they felt proud of what14 they were doing, and they believed in what they were15 doing, right?16 A I would say -- I would say yes.17 MR. NEVILLE: Thank you.18 No further questions.1920 CROSS-EXAMINATION21 BY MR. WALLENSTEIN:22 Q Good afternoon, Ms. Colletti.23 A Good afternoon.24 Q Unlike my colleagues, I will not ask you about25 Tribute Magazine.

1 Do you know a man named Martin Reffsin?2 A
No.3 Q Have you ever heard that name before?4 A No.5 Q You were asked by Ms. Scott on direct examination6 some questions about an exhibit,7 Government's Exhibit 640. Do you still have that in front8 of you?9 A Yes.10 Q Can I ask you, when for the first time did you see11 that exhibit?12 A At the grand jury hearing.13 Q And that would be February of 1997; is that correct?14 A Yes.15 Q And prior to that time you had never seen that16 document before; is that right?17 A Just in review with the DA, with Ron White.18 Q And that's --19 A That's the first time.20 Q And that's in preparation for your testimony before21 the grand jury; is that right?22 A Correct.23 Q You testified although your name appears on these24 documents as having been to certain meetings at the25 penthouse or condo in Manhasset, that you never attended

1 those meetings; is that correct?2 A That's correct.3 Q Is it fair to say that when Mr. White showed you the4 logs in February of 1997, that that's the first time that5 you knew that your name was in them?6 A That's right.7 Q Had anyone prior to your discussion with Mr. White,8 had anyone told you that your name appeared in these logs?9 A No.10 Q Do you know a woman named Maria Gaspar?11 A Yes.12 Q Who is Maria Gaspar?13 A She was the controller. I don't remember her exact14 title, but I think that was her duty at Who's Who at the15 time I was there.16 Q And the dates of your employment were --17 A January of 1994 to December of 1994.18 Q And she was already there when you arrived in19 January?20 A Yes.21 Q And do you recall sometime in September of 199422 having a conversation with Ms. Gaspar with respect to your23 name appearing in these logs?24 A No.25 Q Did she ever tell you that your name was in these

1 logs, or that you were alleged to have attended certain2 meetings?3 A Not that I recall, no.4 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Thank you very much. I have no5 further questions.6 MR. NELSON: Your Honor, if I might briefly?78 CROSS-EXAMINATION9 BY MR. NELSON:10 Q Good afternoon, my name is Alan Nelson.11 I believe you answered in response to a question12 Mr. Neville asked that your employment at Tribute Magazine13 at Who's Who Worldwide was your first job out of college;

14 is that correct?15 A Yes.16 Q And you worked at Who's Who Worldwide for about ten17 months I believe?18 A January to December.19 Q And that was December of 1994?20 A The same year, right.21 Q And what was your second job? Where did you go to22 work from Who's Who Worldwide?23 A It was a health care company, actually in Lake24 Success also, not far from Who's Who.25 Q Was it in a public relations position?

1 A Yes.2 Q Did you find that your employment and the experience3 you acquired from working at Tribute Magazine allowed you4 to move on to a more rewarding position that gave you more5 responsibility and was a more rewarding job?6 A Sure. It was experience.7 Q And you were able to move on based upon the

8 experience you had at Tribute Magazine; is that correct?9 A I am sure it helped.10 Q Did you find that Tribute Magazine was a magazine11 that you enjoyed working with?12 A Yes.13 Q Did you find that it was a quality magazine you were14 working with during that period of time?15 A I have found what I was doing interesting.16 Q Did you find that the people you interviewed were17 people that were qualified individuals who belonged in the18 magazine?19 A Yes.20 Q And you were asked by a number of other attorneys21 about other sales staff personnel who would come to you22 with recommendations of people to place in the magazine.23 Do you find that each of those individuals who24 they suggested to you were certainly qualified individuals25 who belonged in the Registry or the magazine itself?

1 A On paper, sure.2 Q Did you come to interview any of those people?3 A I don't recall. It's possible.4 Q I represent an individual by the name of Frank5 Osman. You might know him as Frank Martin. He is seated6 there with the white hair and glasses. Do you recognize7 that gentleman?8 A Yes.9 Q Am I correct in stating that you overlapped in terms10 of employment approximately a month, he came to work for11 the company right around the time you left; is that12 correct?13 A Toward the end, yes.14 Q Did you have any real interactions with him during15 the time that he was at the company?16 A Nothing that I recall other than just passing in the17 hall.18 Q Would it be fair to say that part of the reason you19 didn't have as much contact with Mr. Martin is the rules20 implemented by Mr. Gordon that frowned upon socialization21 between the different departments in the company?22 A It was probably part of it.23 Q Were you ever aware of any situation or any time24 while you were working at the company where Mr. Gordon25 would either chastise an employee or discipline an

1 employee for breaching his rule against fraternization?2 A I was never involved in anything like that, so I3 couldn't say.4 Q Did you choose to not fraternize with people from5 other units, because you were concerned about potentially6 angering Mr. Gordon?7 A I guess I didn't think about it that way. You know,8 my day was extremely busy from beginning to end, and I9 didn't have time to really fraternize with anyone.10 Q And would it
be fair to say that as it related to the11 different departments within the company, you saw during12 the ten-month period of time that you were employed there,13 that there was in general a little fraternization between14 the employees in the different departments?15 A From what I could see that would be correct.16 Q Were there some employees such as Liz Sautter who did17 have contact on a regular basis with all the departments?18 A I think her job lended for that to happen.19 Q Were there any other employees you were able to20 observe such as Debra Benjamin, who had contact with all21 the different departments within the company on some22 regular basis?23 A I would think so.24 Q But other than that would it be fair to say that at25 least from your observations the majority of the employees

1 remained within their various departments?2 A That would be true.3 MR. NELSON: Thank you.4 I have no further questions.5 MR. JENKS: Judge, can I ask one?6 THE COURT: Surely.7 MR. JENKS: I will ask from here.89 CROSS-EXAMINATION10 BY MR. JENKS:11 Q Did you work at Sterling at all in the city?12 A I would go there half a dozen to a dozen times for13 meetings.14 Q Who did you get your paychecks from, Who's Who15 Worldwide?16 A Who's Who Worldwide Registry.17 Q But you didn't work in the corporate offices at18 Sterling, did you?19 A No.20 MR. JENKS: Thank you, Judge.2122 REDIRECT EXAMINATION23 BY MS. SCOTT:24 Q Ms. Colletti, did you ever have anything to do with25 the actual selling of memberships?

1 A No.2 Q So, you never took part in persuading people to buy3 memberships of Who's Who?4 MR. LEE: Objection.5 MR. GEDULDIG: Objection.6 MR. JENKS: Objection.7 THE COURT: Overruled.8 MR. NEVILLE: Your Honor, I do not object to the9 word persuading.10 THE COURT: Very well.11 A Could you repeat the question?12 Q Did you ever take part in attempting to persuade13 people to buy memberships in Who's Who Worldwide?14 A No.15 Q And were you aware that the company regularly16 obtained names of prospective members from mailing lists?17 A Yes.18 Q And how were you aware of that?19 A Through Debra Benjamin's dealings with various20 companies.21 Q Can you describe these dealings as you had knowledge22 of them?23 A They were just various companies that we would just24 purchase mailing lists from. That's basically all I know.25 Q Did you ever assist Debra Benjamin in anything to do

1 with mailings?2 A Just one where we had mailed like a color brochure3 out, and I was asked to go to the mailing house,4 warehouse, and oversee the mailing, that it went smoothly5 and there were no glitches.6 Q Do you remember the approximate size of that mailing?7 A It was probably tens of thousands.8 Q And do you remember approximately when that was?9 A Probably mid-1994.10 Q Were you aware of how often mailing lists were11 purchased?12 A No.13 Q Now, are you aware of whether members were accurately14 advised about how they were selected for membership?15 MR. JENKS: Objection. Beyond the scope.16 THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.17 Q When you interviewed members for articles in the18 magazine, did you ever tell them anything about how they19 were selected for names in membership?20 MR. TRABULUS: Objection, your Honor.21 THE COURT: Overruled.22 A No.23 Q To your knowledge was this ever disclosed to24 members?25 MR. JENKS: Objection.

1 MR. SCHOER: Objection.2 THE COURT: Sustained.3 Q Did anyone ever instruct you to tell members that4 their names were selected from mailing lists?5 A No.6 Q Did you ever on any occasion ever tell members that7 their names were selected from mailing lists?8 A No.9 Q Now, do you remember testifying about a CD-ROM that

10 became available?11 A Testifying today?12 Q Today, yes.13 A Yes.
14 Q Do you remember when that CD-ROM first became15 available?16 A Probably the end of '94, maybe September, October.17 Q So, that was toward the end of your time at Who's Who18 Worldwide?19 A Yes. Part of my job was editing it, proofreading20 it.21 Q And what were you using in the course of editing and22 proofreading the CD-ROM?23 A Basically it was proofing and editing for24 typographical errors, spelling, missing information,25 incorrect information.

1 Q What were you comparing that information to?2 A Basically it was typographical and spelling, that was3 pretty basic. One of the questions is what is your4 favorite book or favorite movie. If I caught something5 that was incorrect, an incorrect title of a movie or6 incorrect author of a book, I would correct it if I knew7 the correct way of doing it.8 Q Now, who were the people you worked with most closely9 in your office?10 A Suzanne Konopka, Debra Benjamin and Maggie Swendseid.11 Q And were there ever times when you would have lunch12 with these people that you worked with?13 A Sure.14 Q And do you remember ever eating lunch with Maria15 Gaspar?16 A It's possible. Probably, she might have come once or17 twice.18 Q And during these lunches was it typical to talk about19 events that had occurred at work?20 MR. JENKS: Objection.21 THE COURT: Sustained.22 Q What kinds of things would you talk about during23 these lunches?24 A Just basic, you know, what did you do over the25 weekend? Did you see any good movies. It was very light

1 kind of conversations.2 Q Did it ever involve work?3 A I am sure it came up, work.4 Q Are you able to remember every detail of every one of5 those conversations that you had during your lunch breaks?6 A No.7 MS. SCOTT: I have no further questions, thank8 you.9 THE COURT: Anything else?10 MR. TRABULUS: Yes, I do.1112 RECROSS-EXAMINATION13 BY MR. TRABULUS:14 Q You think you would have remembered if Maria Gaspar15 would have told you she phonied something up and put your16 name in it?17 A I think I would remember that.18 Q Now, you were asked by Mr. Geduldig about Vietnam,19 Hong Kong trip.20 When did you start at Who's Who, January of 1994?

21 A Yes, that's correct.22 Q So, if that trip was originally scheduled to have23 happened before then and called off before then, you would24 have no occasion to tell anybody it was being called off,25 right?

1 A Right.2 Q Now, you mentioned you had heard Mr. Gordon yelling3 to salespeople from time to time?4 A Yes.5 Q Fair enough?6 A Yes.7 Q Is that true?8 A Yes.9 Q He wasn't always yelling when he spoke to10 salespeople, was he?11 A No.12 Q Sometimes he would speak in a normal tone of voice?13 A Sometimes.14 Q Sometimes.15 Did you ever hear what he was telling them when16 he was yelling at them?17 A No.18 Q You mentioned the CD-ROM. Do you remember when a19 CD-ROM unit was first installed in your computer, was it20 toward the end also?21 A I would say it was closer to the end than the22 beginning.23 Q So, until that period of time you wouldn't have been24 able to use a CD-ROM, right?25 A Right.

1 Q And that's when you were first gie CD-ROM you2 talked about?3 A Right.4 Q You don't know if a CD-ROM was available to other5 people, such as members before then, would you?6 A I wouldn't know.7 Q So, do you remember whether -- I don't know if you8 can remember this at all, but sometimes CD-ROMs and9 computer programs have a release number on them, like10 release 1.2 or 2.0, do you remember that?11 A No.12 Q All right, never mind.13 Now, when you would speak to a member it would be14 generally with respect to a CD-ROM or press release; is15 that right?16 A Yes.17 Q Would you have any recollection as to whether a --18 recollection telling a member that the name was coming19 from a mailing list?20 A No.21 Q Did anybody tell you not to instruct them that the22 name came from a mailing list?23 A No.24 Q It is just that it never came up; is that right?25 A Yes.

1 Q You were asked with respect to the policies of not2 encouraging fraternization during business hours.3 Is it fair to say that that was just a policy to4 keep a tight ship so the business was running and people5 wouldn't be running around socializing?6 A It was never explained why. It was requested of us.

7 Q The atmosphere there wasn't like a military camp, was8 it?9 A No.10 Q Was it a fairly normal office atmosphere?11 A I thought it was.12 Q With regard to the mailing lists do you know what13 type of mailing lists they were?14 A No.15 Q Do you know whether entire mailing lists were16 purchased, or sometimes selections of lists? Did you get17 involved in that detail?18 A I was never involved in that, no.19 MR. TRABULUS: No further questions, thank you.2021 RECROSS-EXAMINATION22 BY MR. SCHOER:23 Q This mailing that you did, or you supervised in24 mid-1994, was that a mailing to members, or to prospective25 members?

1 A I don't know.2 Q You said that it was a color brochure; is that right?

3 A Yes.4 Q And would that normally be the type of material that5 would be sent to people who are already members?6 A I didn't know what it was.7 Q Okay.8 Can I show you what we have marked as9 Defendant's Exhibit K for Identification?10 (Handed to the witness.)11 Q Do you know if that's the document that was mailed12 out that you were talking about?13 A This doesn't look familiar to me.14 Q One last question.15 When you didn't tell people that you interviewed16 that their names came from mailing lists, you didn't try17 to deceive them, were you?18 A No.19 MR. SCHOER: No further questions.20 MR. JENKS: One question, your Honor.2122 RECROSS-EXAMINATION23 BY MR. JENKS:24 Q Did anyone at Who's Who Worldwide instruct you to25 tell members specifically that their names did not come

1 from mailing lists?2 A No.34 RECROSS-EXAMINATION5 BY MR. LEE:6 Q Ms. Colletti, during the many interviews that you7 conducted of members who were being considered to be8 included in the magazine, did any -- do you recall any of9 these members ever asking you specifically, did they come10 from mailing lists?11 A No.12 Q No one even asked?13 A No.14 Q Would I be fair -- would it be a fair statement by me15 that it appeared to be something that they weren't even16 concerned or cared about? Would that be a fair statement?17 A Yes.18 Q And in your mind it didn't seem to be relevant to19 your interview; am I correct?20 A Correct.21 Q It wasn't something you thought was of concern to22 anyone during the interview?23 A It had no relevance to the interview.24 Q And I have one last -- I want to go on to something25 else.

1 Now, I assume that your work generated paperwork,2 files, all sorts of memos, correct?3 A Sure.4 Q And were there strict rules for the handling and5 maintaining of paperwork that had to do with Who's Who6 Worldwide Registry business?7 A I was never instructed of any kind of rules.8 Q For example, were there strict rules about no9 paperwork generated from the business was allowed to be10 removed from the business premises?11 A I was never told of that.12 Q What about your observation -- well, keeping to your13 specific area, were there rules about -- were there file14 cabinets in your office?15 A
I had a file cabinet, yes.16 Q Did you lock your file cabinet and the paperwork you17 generated every evening when you went home?18 A My paperwork was very basic. It was just my own19 notes from interviews, or background, media kits I had20 been given of the prospective interviewees.21 Q So, as far as your particular area, there were no22 strict rules, no directives from Mr. Gordon about keeping23 papers locked up or anything like that?24 A No.25 Q Do you have knowledge of other areas of Who's Who

1 Worldwide, the business, were there strict rules about no2 one being allowed to remove papers from the offices that3 you know of?4 A I wouldn't know.5 MR. LEE: Nothing else.6 THE COURT: Anything else?7 MS. SCOTT: Yes, your Honor.

89 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION10 BY MS. SCOTT:11 Q Do you remember being asked questions, Ms. Colletti,12 as to whether you were instructed to tell people that they13 were taken from mailing lists?14 A I am sorry, I don't understand.15 Q Actually let me rephrase the question.16 Do you remember being asked questions about17 whether you were specifically instructed not to inform18 people that their names were being taken from mailing19 lists?20 A Today?21 Q Yes.22 A Yes.23 Q And you remember also testifying about that you were24 never in the position to actually persuade people to buy25 memberships; is that right?

1 A Yes.2 Q And so, the people you were dealing with were3 actually already members at the time you began to deal4 with them; is that correct?5 A Correct.6 MS. SCOTT: Thank you.7 No further questions.8 THE COURT: Anything else?9 MR. TRABULUS: Not from me.10 MR. JENKS: Nothing.11 MR. SCHOER: No questions.12 THE COURT: You may step down.13 (Whereupon, at this time the witness left the14 witness stand.)15 THE COURT: Please call your next witness.16 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I am afraid to tell you17 this, but we have temporarily run out of witnesses.18 THE COURT: Patience and moderation.19 So be it, Mr. White. I will talk to you later.20 MR. WHITE: I am sure you will.21 THE COURT: I am only kidding.22 Members of the jury, it looks like you have a23 half a day off.24 JUROR NO. 4: 25 minutes.25 THE COURT: A half a day.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 21311 Meanwhile we will recess until 1:30. I told you2 we will work from 1:30 to 5:30. Please do not discuss the3 case, keep an open mind, come to no conclusions. Enjoy4 the 22, 23 minutes you have off. We will see you tomorrow5 at 1:30.6 Have a nice evening.7 (Whereupon, at this time the jury leaves the8 courtroom.)9 THE COURT: Mr. White, you were doing very well10 until now. Let's not do this. Have the witnesses here.11 We need all the time, all the time we can get. This case12 will take long enough.13 MR. WHITE: Your Honor, I am making my best14 efforts. As you know last night we got caught short15 because Mr. Rosenblatt couldn't come back.16 Ms. Colletti, frankly I thought would take17 longer. The most comparable witness was Ms. Konopka who18 took four hours. Ms. Colletti is about an hour.

19 THE COURT: My view is this: These witnesses20 have never testified before, and they will never testify21 again. If they have to come back twice, so be it. In the22 long run it doesn't mean anything. But it does mean23 something to have 16 jurors, and a flock of other people24 here wasting time, especially in a case of this length.25 It is important.

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 21321 I know it occurred, please try not to have it2 happen again.3 MR. WHITE: I will try.4 THE COURT: See you at 1:30 tomorrow.5 MR. TRABULUS: The witnesses for tomorrow?6 MR. WHITE: Mr. Rosenblatt will continue from7 1:30 to 5:30 at minimum.8 THE COURT: How much longer do you have on direct9 examination?10 MR. WHITE: Part of it depends on your Honor's11 ruling on the condominium.12 THE COURT: I think you better come in at 1:1513 tomorrow, so I can make that ruling.14 MR. WHITE: All right.15 I think probably there are some charts, and16 whether or not we have to change the charts, and we have17 to go over them.18 THE COURT: I would start changing them.19 MR. WHITE: It doesn't sound promising to me,20 your Honor.21 MR. WALLENSTEIN: Sure it does.22 THE COURT: It doesn't.23 MR. WHITE: I would guess about an hour on24 direct.25 THE COURT: Cross will take a long time,

HARRY RAPAPORT, CSR, CP, CM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 21331 Mr. Trabulus?2 MR. TRABULUS: Well, I think so, your Honor.3 THE COURT: I would have another witness here.4 MR. TRABULUS: We have two of us here.5 MR. WALLENSTEIN: I have quite a bit for6 Mr. Rosenblatt, too.7 THE COURT: I will leave it to your discretion,8 but I don't want to have any time that we will be losing.9 So you should have someone else here or at least on phone10 call.11 MR. WHITE: I will do what I can.12 THE COURT: 1:15 tomorrow.13 (Case on trial adjourned until 1:15 p.m., Friday,14 January 30, 1998.)1516171819202122232425

This site is concerned with The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive Club, and the double scandal of government and judical corruption in one of the Stinkiest Trials In America and the concomitant news media blackout regarding this incredible story.

Sixteen weeks of oft-explosive testimony, yet not a word in any of 1200 news archives. This alone supports the claim that this was a genuinely dirty trial; in fact, one of the dirtiest federal trials of the 20th century.

Show your support for justice, for exoneration of the innocent, and for that all-important government accountability, by urgently contacting your Senator, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Illicit Smashing of Who's Who Worldwide Excecutive ClubHow Thomas FX Dunn proved himself the worst attorney in America

(Reed Elsevier has been "pagewaxing" many Who's Who sites, which means illegally erasing them, so thanks for the mirror sites...)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have seen more four hundred state and federal judgeswithout exception, getting away with breaking the law. It is time for change; positive change.

Dirtiest Trials of the Twentieth CenturyThe Who's Who Worldwide Registry TragedyThomas FX Dunn again shows why he is the worst lawyer | worst attorney in America

Dirtiest trials of the 20th Century

There are now hundreds of huge websites with the full story of the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy,
a necessary action because of the illicit and undeniably reprehensible actions of Reed Elsevier, Ltd.

Each "Dirtiest trials of the 20th Century" website contains more than 12,000 printable pages,
detailing how a handful of salespeople, each with a life and story all their own,
had everything taken from them by raw, base corruption in this great land.
Reed Elsevier, Ltd, and its hundreds and hundreds of subsidiaries,
is the richest, most powerful and influential publisher on earth.

Their corruption of those in government service is legendary.
This is just one of their vicious conquests among so many,
revealed in one of the Dirtiest trials of the 20th Century,
one of the dirtiest trials in federal history,
The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Tragedy.
Call Congress, call the White House.
Demand a pardon for the Who's Who-ers.
Please. Call today.

Dirtiest trials of the 20th Century

There are now hundreds of huge websites with the full story of the Who's Who Worldwide Registry tragedy,
detailing how a handful of salespeople, each with a life and story all their own,
had everything taken from them by raw, base corruption in this great land.
Reed Elsevier, Ltd, and its hundreds and hundreds of subsidiaries,
is the richest, most powerful and influential publisher on earth.

Their corruption of those in government service is legendary.
This is just one of their vicious conquests among so many,
revealed in one of the Dirtiest trials of the 20th Century,
one of the dirtiest trials in federal history,
The Who's Who Worldwide Registry Tragedy.
Call Congress, call the White House.
Demand a pardon for the Who's Who-ers.
Please. Call today.

Ludicrous Perversions of Justice in America The Who's Who Worldwide Registry TragedyHelp the Who's Who-ers by calling the President at 202-456-1414 demanding that he pardon the Who's Who Six